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

91–100 of 180 posts

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#91

Post by nitrogen »

wmf wrote: post #78
nitrogen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why doesn't it count?

Because the two have different physical limitations. DSL is strongly limited by distance to a cabinet, and most people can't get any better than 7mbit/s, 20 if you're lucky. Thus, DSL provides no pressure on cable, and the only reasons people use DSL are because they get it bundled with their phone and TV service, or because they got fed up with the cable company and switched to a lesser service out of frustration.

In areas where something actually competitive is available, cable companies rush to improve bandwidth, or offer two-year contract deals at undercut prices to try to outlive the competition, then jack the prices back up when the competition goes bankrupt.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#92

Post by zero_intp »

johngalt wrote: post #77

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.

It's crazy to think that Rancid, MRTG, & RRD are all fundamentally underpinning of all of these major carriers.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#93

Post by seszett »

_stephan wrote: post #42

Does anyone have an idea what the European ISP is that refuses to provide enough peering capacity?

I would have guessed it was French ISP Proxad/Free, which is notorious for having generally shitty peering to a large part of Internet (like Youtube, Imgur or Github, among others).

But though they are a large ISP they are not dominant, and their peering with Level3 is actually quite good... which is why I tunnel most of my connection to my server (the route to which happens to be through Level3) so I can get usable internet.

It really sucks to be able to download an iso from some server in the US at 2 MB/s, but seeing small Imgur gifs load frame by frame, or Github repos cloning at 20 kB/s.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#94

Post by zero_intp »

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…

I can assure you that L3 and Cogent are not seeing the marketplace shrink. 10k quarterly files from each discuss their growths and vulnerabilities.

Historically, eyeball networks have paid for transit from backbone providers. As market consolidation occurred, the cable providers with government granted physical monopolies were able to negotiate for better settlements with their transit providers.

Eventually, the cable companies condensed with the major telephone companies. Some of the new mega companies have backbones and can use their own networks for transit (Verizon, AT&T, ...) others (Comcast) were able to use their size and access to their customers to negotiate largely settlement free exchanges.

However it is important to note that ALL eyeball networks have 1:5 to 1:20 demand ratios. This is the nature of content versus consumption. There is no new news regarding these ratios, and they are not particularly germane unless attempting to engineer the flows.

The real and pertinent issue is that Comcast has not lived up to the 'timely upgrade' clauses in boilerplate (NDA'd) settlement-free peering agreements. Clearly they have an advantage to "defect" from the standard cooperation model. Netflix has chosen to change providers several times, and recently provided data on whom they pay for service.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#96

Post by zero_intp »

seszett wrote: post #93
_stephan wrote: post #42

Does anyone have an idea what the European ISP is that refuses to provide enough peering capacity?

I would have guessed it was French ISP Proxad/Free, which is notorious for having generally shitty peering to a large part of Internet (like Youtube, Imgur or Github, among others). But though they are a large ISP they are not dominant, and their peering with Level3 is actually quite good... which is why I tunnel most of my connection to my server (the route to which happens to be through Level3) so I can get usable…

Free just doesn't buy enough transit; they are not a tier 1 provider.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#98

Post by zero_intp »

toyg wrote: post #80
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Comcast already enjoys a physical government granted monopoly of the 'cable' access rights to their customers.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#99

Post by dllthomas »

njharman wrote: post #18
exelius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the cost of a packet is borne by the receiver while the sender is the one monetizing it. The assumption is that if you're sending traffic to a customer, you are being paid for that activity through subscription fees, ads, donations, etc. That packet costs the receiver some minuscule amount to process. Even though it was requested by the ultimate receiver, the ultimate sender is only sending the packet because…

> you are being paid for that activity through subscription fees, ads, donations, etc. Last time I checked ISPs where heavily monetizing packet receiving to the tune of 5-10x what netflix monetizes from me. For typically slow, shitty service bundled with cable TV or phone I do not want.

... and it's probably pure coincidence that Netflix is in direct competition with 1/3 of that bundle, too.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#100

Post by orik »

cs702 wrote: post #81

In short: if you're in the US, you're paying your ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth, but your ISP is not giving it to you, because its connections to middlemen like Level 3 are maxed out. Level 3 proposes to split the cost of expanding those connections (as is common), but your ISP refuses unless it gets additional payment from Level 3, Netflix, or someone else. Meanwhile, you don't get the bandwidth you've purch…

Disclosure: I work at a small ISP. We mostly compete with Frontier DSL and Comcast Business Class.

If you're buying residential it's safe to assume you're purchasing a burst-able speed and downloads/uploads aren't going to sustain that for hours on end.

Much in the same way that a Utility Company probably isn't gathering enough water for everyone to be maxing their pipes 24/7, residential ISP's don't operate under the assumption that every consumer will have maxed their connection at the same time, and they shouldn't have too. Smart traffic shaping and peering arrangements gives ISP's room to compete.

If consumers could afford a dedicated 35x15 connection they'd have a T1. When you're buying copper it's safe to assume it's going to be over saturated.

The real problem is ISP's for the most part don't compete. They zone of sections for eachother and rack in as much dough as they can. Consumers aren't informed about the quality of different types of connections vs others, and buy based off the cheapest Mbps down/up they can get.

Post reply on HN