Observations of an Internet Middleman • Hacker News Board

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#71

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:07 PM UTC

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?

> The core issue isn't at the last mile, but in connecting a last mile network to the internet?

Not really. The cost of the interconnect between e.g. Comcast and Level 3 is immaterial in the cost of operating a network. The only reason there is so much contention there is that it's a choke point where Comcast can try to put up a toll booth.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#72

Post by nitrogen » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:09 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #31

notdonspaulding wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why should an end-user ISP ever expect a settlement-free peering bandwidth graph to be symmetric? The important question is whether customers are requesting connections that route through through a particular transit provider. Comcast gets to sell "Internet" access, while the transit provider gets to sell bandwidth. Win win, no symmetry needed.

...you can't quantify "benefit"....

Isn't that the entire purpose of an economy?

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#73

Post by nitrogen » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:12 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #24

wmf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the cost of a packet is borne by the receiver... That's true for hot-potato routing, but CDNs generally use cold-potato routing. As for monetization, both Netflix and Comcast are getting paid by their respective customers.

It's no less true for cold-potato routing; the source is just closer to the endpoint. And CDNs doing cold-potato routing happily pay for their transit because the service THEY make money off of is providing CDN services to their customers, who theoretically make money off the content they pay the CDNs to distribute. What it comes down to is Comcast has no incentive to ensure its routes to various Internet transit pro…

Comcast has no incentive to ensure its routes to various Internet transit providers are GOOD if they're not monetizing them.

Customers pay Comcast with money to establish those links. If that's not "monetizing", what on earth is?

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#74

Post by LandoCalrissian » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:18 PM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #56

Summary of situation Comcast cripples customers internet services to extort money from companies connecting Comcast to the internet for free.

It's completely crazy and just blatant extortion on Comcast's part.

The current system is pretty straight forward.

Level 3: Server(Who Level 3 Charges) -> Level 3 -> Comcast -> End User

Comcast: End User(Who Comcast Charges) -> Comcast -> Level 3 -> Server

Now Comcast wants to charge everyone in the chain that isn't them. They are attempting to do this by degrading (or at the very least not upgrading) their services for their customer.

The techno-libertarians that try to defend this nonsense are going to sink the whole ship and make every pay to receive even less.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#75

Post by zero_intp » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:21 PM UTC

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…

MSO revenue is threatened by alternate entertainment content, and is terrified of becoming a dumb pipe with no add-on fees. The issue is that Comcast wants to both connect to the internet for free & get paid by both the viewer and the content provider as they are in yesterday's cable model.

Comcast is connected to the internet through 'settlement-free' peering. Comcast can command this because they have grown large enough to trade access to their customer base for access to the transport network's data. Comcast would like to sell direct access to their network to the content providers, but would like to see more money for the service that the content providers are willing to pay.

Comcast has allowed (through inaction of normal peering upgrades) the interconnections to Level-3/Cogent to become saturated. The primary data on those interconnections is data that competes with the normal content that Comcast is used to delivering to their customers. Cogent and Level-3 offer less expensive bandwidth than their competitors. This is because of their lack of incumbent telephony models, and being dedicated fiber bit pushers.

Comcast is claiming that it is too expensive for them to deliver the service levels to their customers that their customers have contracted. Comcast is demanding that the companies providing the data (not the transit network delivering the data) must pay to have their traffic delivered the last mile. Simultaneously to crying that their internal networks are saturated and require upgrade, the MSOs are offering products that allow their customers to use the local provider's network (for locally sourced content) without incurring billing penalties or usage caps.

(veteran employee of a transit network involved)

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#76

Post by josephschmoe » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:22 PM UTC

mixologic wrote: post #15

cschroed wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comcast promises a certain amount of download capability. When customer requests for content that originate from Comcast's network (that would not normally exceed that download capability) end up saturating a link to which Comcast is party to, then it is Comcast's obligation to attempt to upgrade that link. Comcast cannot control the routes via which the content is returned, they must react to their customers usage p…

Not very ballsy if they've bought enough politicians and lobbyists.

He means it's ballsy because any one of us could just start cutting their physical lines.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#77

Post by johngalt » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:22 PM UTC

I enjoy seeing those MRTG/RRDtool graphs everywhere. I find it so surreal that $X Billions in infrastructure, that is forwarding $Y Billion of internet traffic. All monitored by a single tool created by one guy from Switzerland.

Since this is HN: yes I realize that there has been substantial work subsequently, and that cacti/munin/nagios etc.. are more commonly used.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#78

Post by wmf » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:28 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #68

danielweber wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two net connections, and both are generally reliable, but I've noticed that the DSL connection (over Windstream) is very slow for certain sites like imgur and tumblr and AWS, so I've set those to use the cable modem (Time Warner) connection, where they work great. Since I have 2 connections I definitely have competition in my area. (Wireless is another option.) So I don't get why if a connection has issues, it…

DSL + cable doesn't really count as competition, unless you can choose from multiple cable and multiple DSL providers.

Why doesn't it count?

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#79

Post by zero_intp » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:44 PM UTC

notdonspaulding wrote: post #67

wdewind wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To a normal company, that's a tangible benefit to the agreement enough to make it worthwhile. Can you qualify this a bit? What's the actual expect cost to Comcast here to fix the issue? General ballpark?

You're right to call me out here. Although I have a reasonable idea what it would take technically, I don't actually know the financial impact to Comcast for increasing capacity to L3 or Cogent (not even ballpark). However, I'm taking the L3 article at face value when it says: But there are also typically shared costs for networks to interconnect. Each party pays to augment its own network to allow for more traffic e…

Cogent's CEO has already offered to pay outright for the port costs and data-center cross-connects for any upgrades. The point is to prove that the infrastructure cost of the interconnect are not the issue.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#80

Post by toyg » Mon, May 05, 2014, 9:47 PM UTC

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #54

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…

The big trouble is that we need settlement-free peering, or we'll have a very different sort of internet, or maybe none at all. Though it's hard for some to remember (or to believe), there were big consumer networks prior to the advent of consumer-oriented Internet. Compuserve and AOL were their own networks. And they were abysmal. Peering not only ruined that business model, it managed to co-opt those networks and a…

You could have a situation where the government mandates net neutrality and at the same time compensates the likes of Comcast in some way (recognising their role as public utility and basically sanctioning their monopoly, but without taking over their operations entirely). You could have an anti-monopolistic legal action that splits Comcast but prevents Level3 from taking over / being present in that market. Etc etc...

There are many ways to skin an onion, and full-scale nationalisation is probably the least likely outcome (cash-strapped governments don't need another headache right now). In fact, the real problem here is that one player is leveraging a monopolistic position; remove that position, and the Free Market should start working its magic again.