8 ms·
Why We're Having to End Our Direct Peering Relationship with Deutsche Telekom
- stop50 2y agoThe Deutsche Telekom didn't force Meta to use the private interconnecT. They kept it open after meta wanted 40% off the previous price and the talks broke up.
- mananaysiempre 2y agoTFA manages to say everything except what actually happened and why it’s this particular peering negotiation they decided to whine about. (Settlement-free peering is cutthroat at the best of times, as best as I can understand from the outside, so it is unclear why this is even news.) So could you elaborate on the actual history here?
- stop50 2y agoThe german news article i found explains it quite good: https://www.golem.de/news/kabel-nicht-gezogen-meta-muss-telekom-fuer-peering-bezahlen-2405-185159.html https://www.golem.de/news/kabel-nicht-gezogen-meta-muss-tele... .
- nicholasbraker 2y agoWhat do you mean with "cutthroat"?
- mananaysiempre 2y agoI mean stuff like “we agreed on settlement-free peering at a time when you were sending me about as much as I you, but now you’re sending me 20% more / your traffic is small enough I figure I can pressure you / etc. so the deal’s off, you pay me now.” That’s what I’ve heard, anyway—I’m sure there are people maintaining actual tier-1 networks lurking around here.
- immibis 2y agoTier-1 networks have very clear requirements for settlement-free peering, and only do it with other tier 1 networks. This is about tier 2.
- alias_neo 2y ago"but given the court ruling concerning the unprecedented and unacceptable fees demanded" Sounds like Meta threw its toys out of the pram because German courts didn't bow to their demands. I'd love to hear more details on the "real" story, and not Meta's PR bullshit.
- stop50 2y agoI only have an german article: https://www.golem.de/news/kabel-nicht-gezogen-meta-muss-telekom-fuer-peering-bezahlen-2405-185159.html https://www.golem.de/news/kabel-nicht-gezogen-meta-muss-tele...
- alias_neo 2y agoThanks. The article sounds like Meta wanted 40% off, DT offered 16%, they couldn't agree. DT allowed the traffic to continue while it waited for an agreement to be made and Meta abused it, then said something along the lines of "well, they've been letting us send traffic for free so...", and the court told Meta to fuck off, because that wasn't the terms of the previous contract.
- rich_sasha 2y agoWhat is the actual dispute? I can't isolate it out from the whine of Meta saying DT are baddies (which maybe they are but I can't find where they say that).
- dathinab 2y agothey don't really say, they just say direct peering important, telecom bad, should not affect customers with a lot of words
- sshine 2y agotl;dr: Meta is ending its direct peering relationship with Deutsche Telekom due to the company's actions that undermine net neutrality and put the open internet at risk. Deutsche Telekom is using its market power to potentially restrict its subscribers' access to internet services that do not pay the company additional fees, creating a de facto paywall. Importantly: This is Facebook complaining, hoping to pressure Deutche Telekom through public humiliation. They have peering agreements elsewhere where strict access to Facebook without open Internet access is allowed. So if shutting down open Internet access benefits Facebook, they're happy.
- mananaysiempre 2y agoStill not clear what’s actually happening. 1. DT no longer peers with Facebook for free, and Facebook isn’t willing to pay? A bit more latency for Facebook users using DT, probably a small drop in Facebook visits from DT due to that, but overall, big whoop. 2. That + DT throttles Facebook traffic aggressively in retaliation? That would count as “undermining net neutrality principles” and bad in general. But it’s the kind of thing that already happens in a lot of places generally speaking (don’t know about Germany specifically), and we should push telecom and/or antitrust regulators to prohibit it, but I’d say there’s no urgency here. 3. That + DT sells customers some sort of “Internet except without Facebook, pay more to get Facebook” or “Internet except with slow Facebook, pay more to get fast Facebook”? That would officially be a Very Bad Thing, worth boycotts and other kinds of shouting from the rooftops. The post is very very unclear about what’s actually happened. The actual court decision is about something like 1, but the talk of a “de facto paywall” would imply 3. Overall, I feel trampled by a Gish-galloping cavalry regiment here.
- shakna 2y agoWouldn't a hit piece like this run afoul of most courts? There's a reason that talks after a ruling are so clipped.
- NotYourLawyer 2y agoThe reason is confidentiality agreements after a settlement. This isn’t a settlement.
- dathinab 2y agoand it also doesn't disclose any actual information except that they stopped direct peering
- stop50 2y agoThis german news article explains what happened, they quote directly from the ruling: https://www.golem.de/news/kabel-nicht-gezogen-meta-muss-telekom-fuer-peering-bezahlen-2405-185159.html https://www.golem.de/news/kabel-nicht-gezogen-meta-muss-tele...
- shakna 2y agoThe other reason is defamation. The line that constitutes it is lowered, when you're talking about something that has gone before the courts.
- nottorp 2y agoThey say nothing specific about the why, just random vague threats to "europeans". I believe they forgot to mention "innovation" though?
- highcountess 2y agoThis whole release reads like manipulative propaganda. All the emotive language, front loading/priming with a widely accepted idea among the consumer of the information, framing the title in victimization terms, “Takeaway” in a Propaganda Relations release, meaning “here is what we hope you will believe unflinchingly”, etc. It’s all there.
- anilakar 2y ago> Takeaways: As a result of a recent German court ruling Ten words. That's as far as anti-EU techbros will read before jumping to conclusions.
- steilpass 2y agoDeutsche Telekom’s view https://www.telekom.com/en/company/details/meta-is-not-above-the-law-1079704 https://www.telekom.com/en/company/details/meta-is-not-above...
- edward28 2y agoIt looks like DT is complaining meta doesn't want to pay even though they don't connect directly anymore?
- immibis 2y agoExactly correct. A lot of business in Germany is like this, passive-aggressive money taking. DT is saying they had an agreement of interconnection for payment, Facebook stopped paying, a court said it has to keep paying, and Facebook decided to end the interconnection instead of continuing to pay. DT, in typical German fashion, insists on continuing to receive payment. Because it's Germany, they'll probably go back to court and be able to win another case and forcibly extract payment even though the service is no longer provided.
- squigz 2y ago> DT is saying they had an agreement of interconnection for payment, Facebook stopped paying, a court said it has to keep paying, and Facebook decided to end the interconnection instead of continuing to pay. This (and the DT article) seems to imply Meta stopped paying without ending the interconnect. That seems like a reasonable reason to want to be paid?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throw0101d 2y ago> This (and the DT article) seems to imply Meta stopped paying without ending the interconnect. That seems like a reasonable reason to want to be paid? It takes two to keep a BGP peering session up: if DT didn't want the traffic without being paid they could have shut things down on their end too: * https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/cli-reference/topics/ref/statement/graceful-shutdown-edit-protocols-bgp.html https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/c... * https://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/xe-3s/asr903/irg-xe-3s-asr903-book_chapter_0110.pdf https://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/con...
- kkfx 2y agoAnother proof we need a less concentrated internet to few hubs. These hubs are harmful as harmful is the need of telco for violating net neutrality to serve such hubs well enough. They have both reasons and they are both wrong.
- hs86 2y agoIs this an issue with all networks that have a "restrictive" peering policy, as shown in [0], or is Deutsche Telekom particularly problematic in this case? [0] https://www.peeringdb.com/net/196 https://www.peeringdb.com/net/196
- rsingel 2y agoThis blog post from Stanford professor Barbara van Schewick explains what's happening and what's at stake: https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2024/09/a-deutsche-telekom-shakedown-will-instagram-facebook-whatsapp-slow-to-a-crawl/ https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2024/09/a-deutsche-teleko..."
- no_no_no_no 2y ago[dead]
- immibis 2y agoI'm a Deutsche Telekom mobile customer. What's my chances of getting extraordinary contract termination in court due to their misbehavior?