7 ms·
> To a normal company, that's a tangible benefit to the agreement enough to make it worthwhile. Can you qualify this a bit? What's the actual expect cost to C
by wdewind 13y ago
> To a normal company, that's a tangible benefit to the agreement enough to make it worthwhile.
Can you qualify this a bit? What's the actual expect cost to Comcast here to fix the issue? General ballpark?
- notdonspaulding 13y agoYou're right to call me out here. Although I have a reasonable idea what it would take technically, I don't actually know the financial impact to Comcast for increasing capacity to L3 or Cogent (not even ballpark). However, I'm taking the L3 article at face value when it says: But there are also typically shared costs for networks to interconnect. Each party pays to augment its own network to allow for more traffic exchange (the expense to augment capacity is not significant for either party). And since we often choose to interconnect in a third party data center, the networks usually agree to share the cost of the cross connects by paying for them on an alternating basis. I take that to mean the CapEx is insignificant and the recurring expenses are shared equitably. What's notable about that is that Comcast isn't even sitting down at the table to negotiate equitable terms for upgraded capacity. They're out and out refusing to upgrade without direct payment.
- zero_intp 13y agoCogent's CEO has already offered to pay outright for the port costs and data-center cross-connects for any upgrades. The point is to prove that the infrastructure cost of the interconnect are not the issue.
- PeterisP 13y agoUpgrading that interconnect mentioned in the original article seems like just plugging in some $10k-$20k standard hardware and connecting a single extra wire. That kind cost doesn't matter really, it seems that they're hurting their interconnects intentionally for political reasons.