4 ms·

Verizon probably needs to pay Level 3 for the bandwidth - so apart from the cost of the hardware (cards + cables) there is a possibly large cost which is not me

Verizon probably needs to pay Level 3 for the bandwidth - so apart from the cost of the hardware (cards + cables) there is a possibly large cost which is not mentioned in the Level 3 article.

bitJericho 12y ago
Netflix has offered to directly connect to Verizon without the need for Level3 to be in the middle.
- spyder 12y ago
  and Verizon wrote in their post that they "working" on this: "we are working aggressively with Netflix to establish new, direct connections from Netflix to Verizon’s network." But "working" could mean: "waiting for Netflix to pay for it".
  - wmf 12y ago
    Netflix already paid Verizon's ransom and now Verizon is building connects to Netflix but such connections take time to install. Level 3 is arguing over old news at this point, but they're trying to set a precedent to prevent other ISPs from trying the same thing.
- btgeekboy 12y ago
  This is a good point, but for a different reason: IIRC, Netflix is paying Level3 for connectivity. If Netflix pays Verizon for direct connectivity, Netflix still pays someone for bandwidth, and L3 loses their cut.
ktsmith 12y ago
Verizon probably doesn't need to pay Level 3 for the bandwidth. Typically peering points like this are settlement free. In other words it's a voluntary exchange of traffic and each side of the line keeps 100% of the revenue from its customers using the interchange.
- mikecb 12y ago
  And Verizon claims that peering points are intended to be roughly equal in directional usage. Which this is not. Are there examples of peering agreements where companies don't care that usage isn't balanced and still don't require some sort of net settlement?
  - wmf 12y ago
    Peering links between backbones (like Level 3 and Verizon Business) are supposed to have equal ratios. Peering between content providers and end-user ISPs don't care about ratios.
    - mikecb 12y ago
      Right. And the latter has to pay for it.
      - wmf 12y ago
        The latter what? I think content peering should be free because there's no fair way to set a price for it.
        mikecb 12y ago
        Why not? There's plenty of price data for high volume bandwidth applications, and even if there weren't, the parties could negotiate for it.
        wmf 12y ago
        An end-user ISP like Comcast has a monopoly on access to their customers, so if they're allowed to charge for peering there is no competition to limit how much they charge. This tends to result in the ISP allocating 99% of the surplus created by peering to themselves.
        12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Verizon probably needs to pay Level 3 for the bandwidth - so apart from the cost of the hardware (cards + cables) there is a possibly large cost which is not mentioned in the Level 3 article.

bitJericho 12y ago

Netflix has offered to directly connect to Verizon without the need for Level3 to be in the middle.

spyder 12y ago
and Verizon wrote in their post that they "working" on this: "we are working aggressively with Netflix to establish new, direct connections from Netflix to Verizon’s network." But "working" could mean: "waiting for Netflix to pay for it".
- wmf 12y ago
  Netflix already paid Verizon's ransom and now Verizon is building connects to Netflix but such connections take time to install. Level 3 is arguing over old news at this point, but they're trying to set a precedent to prevent other ISPs from trying the same thing.
btgeekboy 12y ago
This is a good point, but for a different reason: IIRC, Netflix is paying Level3 for connectivity. If Netflix pays Verizon for direct connectivity, Netflix still pays someone for bandwidth, and L3 loses their cut.

ktsmith 12y ago

Verizon probably doesn't need to pay Level 3 for the bandwidth. Typically peering points like this are settlement free. In other words it's a voluntary exchange of traffic and each side of the line keeps 100% of the revenue from its customers using the interchange.

mikecb 12y ago
And Verizon claims that peering points are intended to be roughly equal in directional usage. Which this is not. Are there examples of peering agreements where companies don't care that usage isn't balanced and still don't require some sort of net settlement?
- wmf 12y ago
  Peering links between backbones (like Level 3 and Verizon Business) are supposed to have equal ratios. Peering between content providers and end-user ISPs don't care about ratios.
  - mikecb 12y ago
    Right. And the latter has to pay for it.
    - wmf 12y ago
      The latter what? I think content peering should be free because there's no fair way to set a price for it.
      - mikecb 12y ago
        Why not? There's plenty of price data for high volume bandwidth applications, and even if there weren't, the parties could negotiate for it.
        wmf 12y ago
        An end-user ISP like Comcast has a monopoly on access to their customers, so if they're allowed to charge for peering there is no competition to limit how much they charge. This tends to result in the ISP allocating 99% of the surplus created by peering to themselves.
        12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]