4 ms·

Level 3 vs. Comcast: Peering Dispute or Breach of Net Neutrality?

26 points by 1SockChuck 16y ago

Terretta 16y ago
> “Level 3′s position is simply duplicitous,” said Joe Waz, Comcast’s Senior Vice President for External Affairs, in a statement. “When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution. Now, Level 3 proposes to send traffic to Comcast at a 5:1 ratio over what Comcast sends to Level 3, so Comcast is proposing the same type of commercial solution endorsed by Level 3.” I believe Comcast is pointing at when Level 3 blocked Cogent for pushing too much traffic onto Level 3: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/105790/Level_3_Cogent_resolve_peering_dispute_renew_deal http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/105790/Level_3_Cogent... An interesting article on why de-peering matters: http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/10/22/1316514.html http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/10/22/1316...
- snsr 16y ago
  Thanks for that second link. I think Comcast is clearly drawing a line between L3's CDN and their tier one backbone. The following press release (from 2004) details Comcast's use of L3's fiber: http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=183 http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail...
keltex 16y ago
I always thought that Google should buy NetFlix. Netflix's market cap is $10B or so (maybe they pay $12-$15B in a buyout). Seems like a better deal than $6B for Groupon. I'm sure Google has a lot more leverage in peering negotiations.
- thrdOriginal 16y ago
  And let's not leave out Level 3 and the perennial rumors that it is a prime acquisition target for Google in order to gain a strong fiber backbone (not that I think it will ever happen: I don't).
mcritz 16y ago
It’s funny when evil telecoms fight each other until I realize no matter which one wins, we lose.
jrs235 16y ago
So, does this mean that Comcast is no longer merely a content provider since they are now actively filtering/determining what content is allowed on their network? If so, then Comcast should now be held liable for any and all illegal/pirated content sent across their network. RIAA maybe you should find a few Comcast subscribers downloading and sharing illegal/pirated music then go after Comcast (who actually has the money to pay the fines) for not actively filtering said content out of their network. Comcast, you are walking on a rope next to a slippery slope.
- davidu 16y ago
  This is not what is happening. Comcast is an ISP. Just about every CDN out there pays to peer with Comcast to deliver bits faster and cheaper to Comcast eyeballs. Level(3) is an ISP. Because they carry traffic Comcast customers want they have been able to peer at no-cost to Comcast historically. Now Level(3) is building and selling a large CDN. Level(3) is taking advantage of these existing peering circuits to be able to offer lower-cost CDN than their competitors because they don't have to pay Comcast to exchange traffic. As a consequence, their CDN has grown very large. They now dump far more traffic onto Comcast's network than Comcast sends them. Comcast says their peering policy is based on equal traffic ratios. Therefore, unless Level(3) can balance their peering circuits, they will be forced to pay. This has little to do with Net Neutrality and has been happening between various ISPs over the last 10-20 years. In IPv6 it's even worse. If you have Cogent as your ISP you can't reach Hurricane Electric's network over IPv6 because neither of them has transit and they don't peer with each other. :-(
  - illumin8 16y ago
    This entire model is duplicitous on Comcast's part. They complain when content providers dump too much content on their network. Never mind the fact that Comcast's entire infrastructure is built to deliver lots of downstream traffic. If, for example, a lot of Comcast customers started seeding BitTorrent traffic to L3 customers, generating upstream traffic, Comcast's network would collapse because it is not designed to do this. Comcast should be thankful that their peer is sending them content directly, and that they don't have to pay transit costs from their upstream provider. This is clearly an attempt by Comcast to put up a pay-wall for content from 3rd parties. I've noticed more and more cable company manipulation of CDNs. For example, nothing scientific, but a few days out of each month, Cablevision, my ISP in Connecticut, starts randomly delaying traffic to Akamai CDN which serves Hulu content. It is difficult for me to scientifically prove anything is wrong, however, when the entire Internet is working flawlessly and a few random Akamai CDN content addresses, which just happen to have Hulu content, stop working, or are throttled, something stinks.
alecco 16y ago
Fishy. From Slackerboy @reddit: > Yeah I have seen the peering agreements with L3 and Comcast, > this story is complete BS. > >> Before Level 3 Communications landed the Netflix CDN deal, >> it sent approximately the same amount of traffic to Comcast >> as it received. > > This is a flat out lie, end consumer networks like Comcast ALWAYS > receive FAR more traffic then they send. Note how you get something > like 5 megs down and 1 meg up... wonder why? Because as an end > user you are not allowed to run any servers or serve any services. > > When you request a YouTube video you send maybe 20KB up stream > and receive 50-200MB back. Comcast has NEVER had more then 5% > upstream. > > I am smelling a Comcast fed story here. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/edxjp/level_3_outbid_akamai_on_netflix_by_reselling/c17dvwd http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/edxjp/level_3_ou...
- meroliph 16y ago
  It's wrong to assume that Comcast does not send a lot of upstream traffic. They actually sell IP transit at relatively small prices.
  - alecco 16y ago
    They have about 16 million users of broadband asymmetric access. I doubt any IP transit sold would balance that. It'd be nice to see real numbers instead of conjectures.
- calloc 16y ago
  Comcast is also a transit provider, much like Cox. For example Atjeu located in Phoenix has Cox as their major transit provider. So don't be so quick to dismiss this fact.
mrkurt 16y ago
Comcast and Level3 are both being disingenous, really. Each is pretending they're operating as a transit provider (because they both do at times, Level3 more than Comcast), but neither is actually doing that at the moment. In this case Comcast is the eyeball network and Level3 is the CDN. I have no doubt that Level 3's CDN traffic went through the roof when they took on Netflix. I also have no doubt that Comcast went "oh, we have them by the balls, lets get more money". It's not really a simple thing to take sides on. It is a problem, though, that Comcast is operating as a de facto monopoly with their connected consumers. That's kind of the breaks of giving them that sort of leverage. Thank your congressman. Level3 is sure using that story to their advantage. --Edit-- Also, Comcast apparently does charge other CDNs like this. My opinion has tilted slightly in their favor, it sounds like they're at least being consistant. CDNs always have the option of not using a peering connection but going through paid transit.

26 points by 1SockChuck 16y ago

> “Level 3′s position is simply duplicitous,” said Joe Waz, Comcast’s Senior Vice President for External Affairs, in a statement. “When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will insist on a commercially negotiated solution. Now, Level 3 proposes to send traffic to Comcast at a 5:1 ratio over what Comcast sends to Level 3, so Comcast is proposing the same type of commercial solution endorsed by Level 3.” I believe Comcast is pointing at when Level 3 blocked Cogent for pushing too much traffic onto Level 3: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/105790/Level_3_Cogent_resolve_peering_dispute_renew_deal http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/105790/Level_3_Cogent... An interesting article on why de-peering matters: http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/10/22/1316514.html http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/10/22/1316...

snsr 16y ago
Thanks for that second link. I think Comcast is clearly drawing a line between L3's CDN and their tier one backbone. The following press release (from 2004) details Comcast's use of L3's fiber: http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=183 http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail...

keltex 16y ago

I always thought that Google should buy NetFlix. Netflix's market cap is $10B or so (maybe they pay $12-$15B in a buyout). Seems like a better deal than $6B for Groupon. I'm sure Google has a lot more leverage in peering negotiations.

thrdOriginal 16y ago
And let's not leave out Level 3 and the perennial rumors that it is a prime acquisition target for Google in order to gain a strong fiber backbone (not that I think it will ever happen: I don't).

mcritz 16y ago

It’s funny when evil telecoms fight each other until I realize no matter which one wins, we lose.

jrs235 16y ago

So, does this mean that Comcast is no longer merely a content provider since they are now actively filtering/determining what content is allowed on their network? If so, then Comcast should now be held liable for any and all illegal/pirated content sent across their network. RIAA maybe you should find a few Comcast subscribers downloading and sharing illegal/pirated music then go after Comcast (who actually has the money to pay the fines) for not actively filtering said content out of their network. Comcast, you are walking on a rope next to a slippery slope.

davidu 16y ago
This is not what is happening. Comcast is an ISP. Just about every CDN out there pays to peer with Comcast to deliver bits faster and cheaper to Comcast eyeballs. Level(3) is an ISP. Because they carry traffic Comcast customers want they have been able to peer at no-cost to Comcast historically. Now Level(3) is building and selling a large CDN. Level(3) is taking advantage of these existing peering circuits to be able to offer lower-cost CDN than their competitors because they don't have to pay Comcast to exchange traffic. As a consequence, their CDN has grown very large. They now dump far more traffic onto Comcast's network than Comcast sends them. Comcast says their peering policy is based on equal traffic ratios. Therefore, unless Level(3) can balance their peering circuits, they will be forced to pay. This has little to do with Net Neutrality and has been happening between various ISPs over the last 10-20 years. In IPv6 it's even worse. If you have Cogent as your ISP you can't reach Hurricane Electric's network over IPv6 because neither of them has transit and they don't peer with each other. :-(
- illumin8 16y ago
  This entire model is duplicitous on Comcast's part. They complain when content providers dump too much content on their network. Never mind the fact that Comcast's entire infrastructure is built to deliver lots of downstream traffic. If, for example, a lot of Comcast customers started seeding BitTorrent traffic to L3 customers, generating upstream traffic, Comcast's network would collapse because it is not designed to do this. Comcast should be thankful that their peer is sending them content directly, and that they don't have to pay transit costs from their upstream provider. This is clearly an attempt by Comcast to put up a pay-wall for content from 3rd parties. I've noticed more and more cable company manipulation of CDNs. For example, nothing scientific, but a few days out of each month, Cablevision, my ISP in Connecticut, starts randomly delaying traffic to Akamai CDN which serves Hulu content. It is difficult for me to scientifically prove anything is wrong, however, when the entire Internet is working flawlessly and a few random Akamai CDN content addresses, which just happen to have Hulu content, stop working, or are throttled, something stinks.

alecco 16y ago

Fishy. From Slackerboy @reddit: > Yeah I have seen the peering agreements with L3 and Comcast, > this story is complete BS. > >> Before Level 3 Communications landed the Netflix CDN deal, >> it sent approximately the same amount of traffic to Comcast >> as it received. > > This is a flat out lie, end consumer networks like Comcast ALWAYS > receive FAR more traffic then they send. Note how you get something > like 5 megs down and 1 meg up... wonder why? Because as an end > user you are not allowed to run any servers or serve any services. > > When you request a YouTube video you send maybe 20KB up stream > and receive 50-200MB back. Comcast has NEVER had more then 5% > upstream. > > I am smelling a Comcast fed story here. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/edxjp/level_3_outbid_akamai_on_netflix_by_reselling/c17dvwd http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/edxjp/level_3_ou...

meroliph 16y ago
It's wrong to assume that Comcast does not send a lot of upstream traffic. They actually sell IP transit at relatively small prices.
- alecco 16y ago
  They have about 16 million users of broadband asymmetric access. I doubt any IP transit sold would balance that. It'd be nice to see real numbers instead of conjectures.
calloc 16y ago
Comcast is also a transit provider, much like Cox. For example Atjeu located in Phoenix has Cox as their major transit provider. So don't be so quick to dismiss this fact.

mrkurt 16y ago

Comcast and Level3 are both being disingenous, really. Each is pretending they're operating as a transit provider (because they both do at times, Level3 more than Comcast), but neither is actually doing that at the moment. In this case Comcast is the eyeball network and Level3 is the CDN. I have no doubt that Level 3's CDN traffic went through the roof when they took on Netflix. I also have no doubt that Comcast went "oh, we have them by the balls, lets get more money". It's not really a simple thing to take sides on. It is a problem, though, that Comcast is operating as a de facto monopoly with their connected consumers. That's kind of the breaks of giving them that sort of leverage. Thank your congressman. Level3 is sure using that story to their advantage. --Edit-- Also, Comcast apparently does charge other CDNs like this. My opinion has tilted slightly in their favor, it sounds like they're at least being consistant. CDNs always have the option of not using a peering connection but going through paid transit.