Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3
Exactly! WISPs need to build their percieved value in the eyes of other ISPs. It all has to start somewhere. One way is to start peering at any level, with who ever you can, regardless of whether its really again. One measurement is traffic volume, unfortunately, most WISPs aren't favors comparing their low volume the he high volume of their desired peer, regardless of the ratio. One measure is a national foot print interconnected or not. If you have atleast 3 diverse interonnected national POPs, you can argue that your network will carry the traffic the majority of the path, not the upstream/peer's network. Most small WISPs dont go hear because... Internet transit is usually pretty cheap, meaning cheaper to pay for, than to pay to keep 3 diverse NOCs operational. But even if small, I believe WISPs do deserve to get paid just as much as the next guy. But we have to sell that value well enough that a prospective buyer is willing to buy it. My opinion is that providers really need to be at the 1Gig level to justify colocation and peering. But getting paid peering is not a given, it still then takes work to justify why one should get paid. I personally, think that WISPs have a very strong justification That we serve a unique market that other ISP cant serve, which resources to serve are in shortage. Its a market that we can successfully deliver to content providers, that content providers can uniquely profit from. They should be able to justify paying us. I like to point to AOL, one of the big success stories on getting other companies to pay them for access to eyeballs. The got comanies to pay them billion, and the speed was only dialup. In a free market, we'd have the right to explore what our value is or isn't. I agree fully with Fred's insightful comment. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3 I guess what I don't understand about this whole thing is how much traffic one ISP is sending another. So, if you send me too much traffic, you must pay. I think nearly every WISP on this list is receiving more traffic than we are sending AND we are paying for it. Why are they not paying us? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3
A bit after the fact, but thought I'd pass this article on that clearly quotes the Hippocracy and Spin from Level3.. http://attpublicpolicy.com/ It's Not Really Louder Just Because it Goes to Eleven. Posted by: Bob Quinn on December 2, 2010 at 11:40 am When I read earlier this week that Level 3 was trying to elevate its peering dispute with Comcast into some kind of a major net neutrality gaffe, I immediately typed into my search engine the names Cogent Communications and Level 3 to see if I hadn't somehow slipped into an alternative universe over the long Thanksgiving weekend. I was relieved to learn that I was merely back in Washington, D.C. where spin is both King and Queen. Here is what I found: Level 3's Shifting Positions on Peering - As a Backbone Provider in 2005, Level 3 Said: There are a number of factors that determine whether a peering relationship is mutually beneficial. For example, Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network. It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business. Level 3 Press Release, Oct. 7, 2005 As a Content Delivery Network Operator in 2010, Level 3 Said: It is regrettable that Comcast has sought to portray this simply as a commercial disagreement or a peering dispute. They miss the point and are attempting to distract from the fundamental issue..The fundamental issue is not whether Comcast sends more traffic to Level 3 or whether Level 3 sends more traffic to Comcast. Both Level 3 and Comcast are responding to the requests of Comcast's subscribers, who want to be free to see and use the full suite of content and applications that are available on the Internet today and in the future. Level 3 wants to assure that freedom is preserved. Level 3 Press Release, November 29, 2010 Despite all the spin from Level 3 and political organizations like Free Press, and at the risk of contradicting one of my old Spinal Tap heroes Nigel Tufnel, I have to conclude that it's not, in fact, louder just because it goes to eleven.this is just a peering dispute no matter how loudly Level 3 and Free Press shout net neutrality violation. In 2005, Level 3 created quite a stir in the Internet infrastructure community when it unilaterally de-peered Cogent Communications (i.e., disconnected Cogent from significant parts of the Internet), regrettably without informing any of Level 3's or Cogent's customers. In the interests of understanding this issue (and why it is a classic peering dispute and not a net neutrality issue), let's spend a minute on peering. Level 3 and Cogent had a Settlement-Free Peering arrangement that Level 3 felt Cogent was violating. Those types of agreements are generally based on a set of criteria that may include provisions like each party agreeing to maintain a network that is roughly equivalent in size and scope (a party may require a certain number international and/or domestic interconnection points), a commitment to interconnect at a specified bandwidth (ATT requires OC192), and a commitment to exchange roughly the same volume of traffic (ATT's current settlement-free peering ratio is 2:1). There may be other criteria, but those are the big hitters. (I apologize in advance to all the peering geeks out there for the 10,000 foot level characterization that lacks the technical minutiae that you folks adore). The basic concept behind those requirements is simply that the relationship has to be mutually beneficial to both parties, since no money is exchanging hands. Companies that do not meet the settlement free peering criteria will generally enter into an agreement for some form of paid peering or transiting arrangement. AT ATT, we have a relatively small number of providers with whom we have settlement-free arrangements but many more agreements that are for some form of paid peering/transiting. Back in 2005, Level 3 explained its actions with Cogent by arguing that Cogent was utilizing far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time. Because Cogent was delivering far more traffic to Level 3 than it was receiving from Level 3, Level 3 asserted that settlement free peering was not appropriate - the arrangement was not mutually beneficial and Level 3 was therefore being asked to subsidize Cogent's business. Thus, Level 3 wanted Cogent to enter into a paid arrangement. And despite the fact that Level 3, in its own peering policy, continues to adhere to the concept of commercial negotiation of mutually beneficial agreements (their current policy reads: Like any commercially negotiated arrangement, Level 3 believes
Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3
I guess what I don't understand about this whole thing is how much traffic one ISP is sending another. So, if you send me too much traffic, you must pay. I think nearly every WISP on this list is receiving more traffic than we are sending AND we are paying for it. Why are they not paying us? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3
At 12/21/2010 09:51 AM, canopy wrote: I guess what I don't understand about this whole thing is how much traffic one ISP is sending another. So, if you send me too much traffic, you must pay. I think nearly every WISP on this list is receiving more traffic than we are sending AND we are paying for it. Why are they not paying us? As a rhetorical question, sure. But for the record, the way the Internet really works is that it's a free market, and you're allowed to buy your upstream/peering/transit from anyone, at the best deal you can make. If nobody wants to give it to you for free, you pay. If your content looks important enough to another provider, they might peer for free. It's all a mutual exchange of value, where money and content are both representations of value, and value is totally in the eye of the beholder (that horse is lame!). Start regulating it and all hell (that is, the place where all the lawyers are) breaks loose. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] From ATT public policy blog- Comcast vs Level3
Start regulating it and all hell (that is, the place where all the lawyers are) breaks loose. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 And when the free market peering / upstream solutions are replaced with regulation then it is just one more easy step toward taxing all the traffic per megabyte. Lookout ladies and gentlemen. They are from the government and they are here to help us. John Scrivner WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
