Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Fri Oct 7 05:54:37 UTC 2005

Alex Rubenstein wrote:

> Further, the internet has always been a best-effort medium.

Can someone please explain how Level 3 is making a "best effort" to 
connect their customers to Cogent's customers?

Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from 
mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to 
not peer.  I'd love to know how it improves Level 3's network to have 
data from Cogent arrive over some *other* connection rather than 
directly from a peering connection.  Do they suddenly, magically, no 
longer have backhaul that mostly-content data across their own backbone 
to their users who have requested it if it should come in from one of 
their *other* peers who (in normal peering fashion) hot-potato hands it 
off to them at the first opportunity, rather than coming in directly 
from Cogent?

I don't think so.

So why break off peering???

AFAICT there's only one reason to break off peering, and it's to force 
Cogent to pay (anyone) to transit the data.  Why does L3 care if Cogent 
sends the data for free via peering, or pays someone ELSE to transit the 
data?

I think this is about a big bully trying to force a smaller player off 
of the big guys' playing field (tier 1 peering).  From where I sit it 
looks like an anti-competitive move that is not a "best effort" to serve 
their customers but a specific effort to put another (smaller) 
competitor out of business (of being a transit-free or mostly 
transit-free backbone) by forcing them to pay (someone), forcing their 
costs up.  Level 3 must know they are no longer putting for a "best 
effort" for their own customers to connect them to the "internet" (as 
their customers see it, the "complete internet" that their customers 
have come to expect).

I Am Not A Lawyer.  (duh?)

IMHO all L3 customers have a valid argument that Level 3 is in default 
of any service contract that calls for "best effort" or similar on L3's 
part.

I also believe that Cogent has a valid argument that Level 3's behavior 
is anti-competitive in a market where the tier 1 networks *collectively* 
have a 100% complete monopoly on the business of offering transit-free 
backbone internet services.  As such, L3's behavior might fall into 
anti-trust territory - because if Cogent caves in over this and buys 
transit for the traffic destined for L3 then what's to stop the rest of 
the tier 1 guys from following suit and forcing Cogent to buy transit to 
get to *all* tier 1 networks?  Then who will they (TINT) force out next?

What's to stop a big government (like the US) from stepping in and 
attempting to regulate peering agreements, using the argument that 
internet access is too important to allow individual networks to bully 
other networks out of the market - at the expense of customers - and 
ultimately resulting in less competition and higher rates?  Is this type 
of regulation good for the internet?  OTOH is market consolidation good 
for the internet?

I don't like this slippery slope, I don't like it one little bit.

jc