Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Observations of an Internet Middleman

blog.level3.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 180 posts

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#31

Post by exelius »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #23
exelius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Level3's issue is that Comcast is unwilling to increase the capacity of their links without payment from Level3. If Level3 engages in settlement-free peering with Comcast and their network traffic graph looks anything like the 100gbit link in the article, I don't blame them: it's a 20:1 disparity in traffic in vs traffic out. What's happening here is that Level3 and other transit providers are starting to see…

> it's a 20:1 disparity in traffic in vs traffic out. Are you talking about on this graph? http://blog.level3.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/route_info... Because all the numbers I see are showing about a 5:1 or 6:1 imbalance. > ...transit providers are starting to see their industry be squeezed by the big ISPs. No. > ...why do transit providers even exist? Because it's untenable (and inefficient) for Comcast to buil…

I was going from memory on the 20:1 thing and I was wrong, but 5:1 is still not even close to symmetric.

I also used a bit of hyperbole in the "why do transit providers even exist" part; transit providers do still need to exist to provide access for the long tail. But Level3 and the like do see their market shrinking as the big fish who currently pay them for transit either directly or indirectly move more bandwidth to direct connections with the big ISPs. It is definitely starting to squeeze them.

As far as the benefit to each network goes, that's hogwash. It's not how the contracts are written because you can't quantify "benefit". You can quantify packets sent/received. Netflix needs to make money just as badly as Comcast does, so the fact that their service is crappy is much more their problem than it is Comcast's. Netflix can always purchase transit through another company that's not Comcast.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#32

Post by exelius »

cortesoft wrote: post #26
exelius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would all be fine and good if Level3 didn't make money from selling bandwidth. Comcast doesn't have to buy a connection from Level3; Level3 will give Comcast a link for free because they know they can turn around and charge their own customers for access to it. Comcast is really just cutting out the middleman here; and that scares Level3.

They could only cut out the middle man if they built their own global network; they don't have any fiber running to Europe or Asia or elsewhere. If there were no middle man, Comcast customers could only reach other Comcast customers.

But they are cutting out the middleman with respect to large traffic sources. Netflix won't be the only one to pay for an interconnect; AWS, Google and Facebook will likely follow suit shortly. Take that business away from the transit providers and it hurts.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#33

Post by danielweber »

mixologic wrote: post #17
exelius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would all be fine and good if Level3 didn't make money from selling bandwidth. Comcast doesn't have to buy a connection from Level3; Level3 will give Comcast a link for free because they know they can turn around and charge their own customers for access to it. Comcast is really just cutting out the middleman here; and that scares Level3.

But they cant cut out the middleman. Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix or anywhere else on the internet. I think Level 3 should straight up shut off their peering agreement with comcast and watch how all the last mile customers blame comcast for the issue, until such time as comcast stops playing games.

That assumes they blame Comcast. Maybe they blame Netflix for not working.

If you get to set the narrative such that one side or the other as the only ones who gain from the interconnection, this becomes trivial, but the hard facts are that both sides want the interconnection, but to try as hard to pretend that the other side is the more desperate one in the deal.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#34

Post by wdewind »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #30
wdewind wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks a lot for your response (and to the others who responded as well, appreciate it!). What you're saying makes sense, but just to play devils advocate... Disclaimer: The blog I'm about to post was linked from Comcast's blog. They claim he is independent, I know nothing about him. "Netflix could use multiple providers to connect to ISPs and could also use third party CDNs like Akamai, EdgeCast and Limelight, who a…

> "It seems like it would be great if they could figure out a mutually beneficial situation, but I guess I fail to see the moral hazard." This article in particular is making the argument that at the level that L3, Comcast, AT&T, Netflix and others are operating, it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer. The article also makes the point that the capital expenditure is negligible compared to the benefit to both…

> it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer.

But Netflix might be the exception here right?

> You can't just ignore the monopoly argument.

You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't seem to actually be relevant here (as Comcast is treating all traffic through those links poorly, not just Netflix traffic). If it is truly about the monopoly, regulators have different (and thankfully more powerful) tools to change Comcast's behavior, whereas using net neutrality seems like a losing (and misleading) fight.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#35

Post by cortesoft »

wdewind wrote: post #12
preinheimer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to…

Thanks a lot for your response (and to the others who responded as well, appreciate it!). What you're saying makes sense, but just to play devils advocate... Disclaimer: The blog I'm about to post was linked from Comcast's blog. They claim he is independent, I know nothing about him. "Netflix could use multiple providers to connect to ISPs and could also use third party CDNs like Akamai, EdgeCast and Limelight, who a…

Couple of points: Comcast isn't buying bandwidth from Level 3. "Settlement-free peering" means no money is exchanged. The reason they don't charge each other is because it is mutually beneficial; Comcast gets to charge it's customers for access to content that passes through Level 3 and Level 3 gets to charge it's customers for access to the Comcast subscribers.

The problem is that there is only a market solution for the Level 3 customers' side; if Level 3 can't accept all the traffic that their customers are sending it, they have other options with who to connect to, as there are other backbone providers. It is in their financial interest to maintain their network capacity, or their clients will go elsewhere.

Comcast, on the other hand, has no market pressure. If they can't handle all the data that their customers are trying to access, their customers have no other option. They are stuck with Comcast.

And therein lies the rub; what both Level 3's and Comcast's customers want is access to each other. Neither company can provide that service on their own; Comcast doesn't have a global network that can send data around the world, while Level 3 doesn't have a last-mile network that connects to all the end users. However, only Level 3 has to worry about losing its customers to a competitor. Comcast can essentially hold all parties hostage; they can demand payments from every party: end users, Level 3, and Level 3's customers. Of course, holding everyone hostage hurts everyone, including their own customers; however, since their customers have no other options, they aren't really in danger of losing them. They can hold out longer than Level 3 can, because if Level 3 doesn't agree to pay Comcast's ransom, someone else might, and Level 3 will lose their customers to whoever pays Comcast's ransom.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#36

Post by spindritf »

preinheimer wrote: post #5
wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to…

You cannot pull anything from the Internet. Merely request that someone sends data to you.

EDIT: I understand it's an emotional issue but it's true. You can only send packets and hope others will talk to you.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#37

Post by wdewind »

jeffasinger wrote: post #21
wdewind wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this does seem to be a core issue. How can we make it easier for people to start last-mile ISPs? It seems like a pretty capital intensive business to get involved in :)

The core issue isn't at the last mile, but in connecting a last mile network to the internet? Maybe we make Cable companies share their last mile networks like we did with DSL?

Right, but having more last mile networks would create pressure to resolve the connecting last mile ISP to infrastructure ISP issue.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#38

Post by [deleted] »

johnjac wrote: post #7
wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

My understanding is this. No Money exchanges hands between Level3 and Comcast, but there is an agreement for Comcast to provide a port for Level3 to connect to. Level3 brings the traffic to Comcast door Step. Level3 pays for the port on their side. Level3 is happy to add more ports, BUT Comcast Refuses. Not because more ports are that expensive but those in charge at Comcast are from the TV side of the house where bl…

[deleted]

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#39

Post by cortesoft »

exelius wrote: post #32
cortesoft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could only cut out the middle man if they built their own global network; they don't have any fiber running to Europe or Asia or elsewhere. If there were no middle man, Comcast customers could only reach other Comcast customers.

But they are cutting out the middleman with respect to large traffic sources. Netflix won't be the only one to pay for an interconnect; AWS, Google and Facebook will likely follow suit shortly. Take that business away from the transit providers and it hurts.

Someone is still going to have to send that data across the ocean and other long distances.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#40

Post by osi »

wdewind wrote: post #34
notdonspaulding wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It seems like it would be great if they could figure out a mutually beneficial situation, but I guess I fail to see the moral hazard." This article in particular is making the argument that at the level that L3, Comcast, AT&T, Netflix and others are operating, it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer. The article also makes the point that the capital expenditure is negligible compared to the benefit to both…

> it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer. But Netflix might be the exception here right? > You can't just ignore the monopoly argument. You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't seem to actually be relevant here (as Comcast is treating all traffic through those links poorly, not just Netflix traffic). If it is truly about the monopoly, regulators have dif…

Comcast wants to switch people from http://www.comcast.com/peering to http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true

The former is what Level 3 does, the latter Netflix.

Post reply on HN