The Cost of Paid Peering with Chinese ISPs

Wed Apr 1 20:27:48 UTC 2020

>
> No one suggested it isn’t censorship,
>
In fact, some replies suggested it’s more commercial actions. We said it's
"likely influenced by commercial decisions", we didn't say censorship is
out of the question. We still think censorship is the possible cause, but
we run out of methods to verify it, that's why we switched to commercial
actions to try our luck. If commercial actions don't seem to cause the
slowdown, then it would be definitely censorship.

Most of the performance hit is because of commercial actions, not
> censorship.
>
When there is a tri-opoly, with no opportunity of competition, its easily
> possible to set prices which are very different than market conditions.
> This is what is happening here.
>
Prices are set artificially high, so their interconnection partners wont
> purchase enough capacity. additionally, the three don't purchase enough to
> cover demand for their own network. Results in congestion.
>

>                                                                        --
> comment


what also doesn't help is that the Chinese carriers don't want to peer in
> Asia, not even with globally transit-free tier-1 networks. Their closest
> point of interconnection is typically in Europe or the US, so thousands of
> miles away from the end user.


>                                                                        --
> Anonymous comment


> you’re bating here.
>
Once again we are confused by the accusation.  We don't want to bait anyone
for anything.

Not deploying enough international capacity is absolutely a form or
> censorship deployed to great avail
>
 Yes we agree it is also a form of censorship. However, it is based on the
assumption that China didn't deploy enough international capacity, which we
don't have direct proof of it. On the contrary, from the stable performance
of the traffic going out of China, it is very likely the assumption is not
true. They might have enough physical capacity, but they don't make good
use of it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200401/dd09a79b/attachment.html>