The large ISPs and Peering

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone
involved with the ISP world should know about.

Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest
ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW,
Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the
concept of peering. The all peered with each other,
most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or
above. The problem was that the provisioning time and
effort required for these circuits was getting quite
out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high.

So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They
decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US,
which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of
peering. In order to avoid the appearence of
collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each
originating from their own company, but otherwise
almost identical. And the sites were choosen using
essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly,
the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as
Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and
others.

There are several rumors floating about as to which
sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and
conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email.

The key questions...

1) What are the selected sites?
2) How do the rest of us play?
3) Why wasn't this process more open?

I know that this is a true situation, as I have
confirmation from three different sources, and have
seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await
the comments of those providers involved with this
effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open
internet.

- PR

2

1) What are the selected sites?

Doesn't matter.

2) How do the rest of us play?

You don't, unless they invite you.

3) Why wasn't this process more open?

It doesn't need to be.

If it is collusion for a few ISP's to get together in one location
and peer then well, anyone at a PAIX, a MAE, a Telehouse, or any
number of other locations is guilty of colluding with other people
at the same location. There is a long tradition of ISP's meeting
somewhere in the middle, it's just often been hidden in telco
circuits (each side buys a half circuit to some telco meeting point
in the middle). Now they are putting routers in the middle meeting
point, what changed, nothing.

If anything this is good for the small ISP, because before you had
to be a telco and be able to deliver half circuits to a telco
meeting point to get good peering. Now there is some hope that
requirement would be minimized in the future.

Next thing you know the fact that Ford and GM both make cars that
run on Unleaded Gas and force you to buy from these central
distrubution points run by Exxon/Mobil will be because they are
colluding against the people making {natural gas,electric,fuel
cell} cars.

3

Anything the Telco's do is not good for the smaller ISP. Nothing any of
the RBOC's have done have been good for the small ISP. In fact, most of
them are trying to stomp out the small ISP.

Curits

4

There's nothing sinister or secret about this.

I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and
I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart
thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and
peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do.

What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will
now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the
big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll
market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone
else there too.

These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s,
Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and
content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from
competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge
local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from
anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good.

"What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility
that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from
yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so
again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook
up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose
wisely.

- Jeb Linton

(My opinions only, not the opinions of EarthLink or anyone else as far as I
know.)

5

Let's break this one down.

The large ISPs have finally started to work together, to potentially exclude
smaller providers. That isn't good.

Certain colo facilities are being choosen. Others are not. This has a major
business impact on the ones who aren't choosen.

Why is any of this bad? Because when X providers who control a large part of
the market start to work together, you get a Cartel. This type of joint
decision-making is always bad for the smaller player in the field, as the
self-interest of the larger players is to preserve their own market share.

Cartels are bad for business, as they make the industry less competitive.
Thats bad for everyone.

As for your remarks about these providers and their "huge" routers, and the
bigness of these colos... What does that have to do with this issue? The
vast majority of space would be taken up with DWDM or SONET gear in any
case.

A "one-stop shop" looks good to the consumer, at least at first. What
happens when the prices start to synchronize? This type of approach takes a
great deal of flexibility out of the IP transit sales process. The big will
get bigger, and the consumer will eventually suffer.

Earthlink is a huge consumer of transit bandwidth, so it would seem to be in
your shareholder's best interest to keep competition high, and thus keep
prices low.

- Daniel Golding

6

You're certainly right about the optical gear, but it misses the point that
the Tier-1s will come nowhere near filling these facilities.

Non-Tier-1 players are by no means being excluded from getting into these
facilities - exactly the opposite. The facility vendors are pushing to get
them in. The only thing were weren't included in is the choice of
facilities; if the Tier-1s want to form a consortium (they call it that,
rather than a "cartel"), it's certainly within their rights to do so.

I don't see this as a bad thing. What you say about price equalization
followed by increases may be true, but it seems unlikely to me for a few
reasons.

1. There's a fiber glut.
2. Several of the Tier-1s in the consortium are relatively new players who
are still paying for their share of the fiber glut, in a market downturn.
3. Because of 1 & 2, transit prices have already plummetted this year. The
best price we can get now is less than 50% what it was eight months ago.
4. Tier-2s and Content Providers have already started peering aggressively
to avoid paying the Tier-1s for transit. This is likely to happen even more
aggressively if we have a smaller and better known set of places to meet and
peer.

This is even more compelling to the larger, older, more expensive Tier-1s.
If I'm in a building where three providers can give me transit at $100/Mb
and four have it at $200-300/Mb, the choice is easy. Equalization may happen
here, but it will be a good thing, not a bad thing, for the reasons above.

In the end, Tier-1s need more transit business, and Tier-2s/Content
Providers need less transit (i.e. the growth rate is decreasing). More
supply, less demand. Prices will decrease.

- Jeb

7

From what I understand, the space requirements were 1,000 sq ft. Obviously this would not fill any of the colos they decided to go into. Where the colos were not "super-sized" they were asking about cross connect models where even if the next tier1 went into a different colo, there was a cross connect available at the same pricing as if they were in the room. So it seems they were making it part of the duties of the colo landlords to provide an infrastructure where by no future tier1s would have a cost disadvantage.

What I read into this was that non of the existing tier1s wanted any future company to scream "consortium" or any other dirty words, and say they were placed at a competitive disadvantage because the existing colo was full.

As you can read from Jeb's email, if the tier1s are too tight on peering policy, it only encourages the tier2s and content people to work around them, meaning a reduction of traffic ie. revenue for the tier1s.

Dave

8

This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone
involved with the ISP world should know about.

This also isn't much news. It ain't collusion to keep costs down, nor is
it collusion to offer cheaper transit services to your customers when
they're in the same spaces as you...

Considering how much hay some folks STILL make of the old head-of-line
blocking at the MAEs and tit-for-tat interconnection upgrades, why is it
a Bad Thing?

There's a presumption that this indicates a major change; nope. Just
folks sharing more of their criteria and realizing that some of the
places in which they already inhabit/are planning to inhabit fir the
bill. There also appears to be the presumption that one would ONLY be
able to get service/connectivity/etc from these big dogs at these sites.
I hadn't heard that. Of course there would be a thin-end-of-the-wedge,
slippery slope argument if that were true, but it aint. The previous
poster nailed it when pointing out the desire to fire-and-forget cost-
effectively for fat PIs.

1) What are the selected sites?

I'm sure there will be a press release of some kind.

2) How do the rest of us play?

What do you mean by 'play'? If you meet a networks' peering bar, ask
them. Most large networks have publicly-posted peering requirements. If
you can't find them, ask. If you're a customer-level and not a peer,
then don't. If you're a colo operator in a non-fiber-rich city upset
that you've been passed over, get some facilities.

3) Why wasn't this process more open?

What degree of openness would satisfy you? Business (just like people)
need to decide where to spend their effort. I'm sure it's a waste of
time to send the RFP to folks that don't have facilities in any of the
cities you have in common with your top N (5? 8? 10?) peers. So I
wouldn't expect the Hills of West Virginia IX [no offense to the West
Virginians] to get a copy.

Likewise, I'm sure the businesses have their own definitions of return-
on-investment for defining the Top N they want to play with. I'm sure
the bean counters wnt a small N and the engineers want a large one.
There are very few engineers that want to NARROW their choices, and
very few bean counters that want to spend money, in this or any economy.
For many folks, typically those who post anonymously in order to stir
controversy, there is no satisfactory level of "openness".

To quote Barry Shein "Yes, keep an open mind, but not so open that your
brains fall out of your head."

Cheers,

Joe "you may revisit the X-Disclaimer now" Provo

9

There's nothing sinister or secret about this.

  Except for the obvious troll by the anonymous poster.
If our anonymous poster has the claimed RFPs, why haven't they
been posted? Why are they posting anonymously?

I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and
I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart
thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and
peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do.

  I hate to point this out, but the `big players' are invariably
associated with large LECs, IXCs and other companies in possession of
A) large amounts of fiber and/or b) large amounts of transport.

  They are also typically in posession of large amounts of
colo, usually their own, which they are already deployed into.
Would you rather deploy into your own colo, or someone elses,
particularly when that someone is in competition with you? Do you
want to be in a facility your competitors have access to?

What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will
now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the
big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll
market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone
else there too.

  I think you vastly overestimate the ability of multiple providers
to cooperate on this scale. The regulatory and goodwill cost of such
cooperation, even if possible, exceeds the LEC/IXC/fiber subsidized peering
loops.

These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s,
Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and
content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from
competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge
local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from
anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good.

  *bzzt* Wrong again. In order for a large carrier, particularly
large access and transit ISPs to deploy into these facilities, they will
require transport equipment. ADMs and diverse fiber entrances into those
facilities are not cheap. They would have to fully deploy into each of
these facilities.

  The total equipment, fiber, and facilities cost of such a move is
likely to be much higher than arranging for private peering as needed.

"What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility
that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from
yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so
again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook
up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose
wisely.

  It comes down to the savings. From a tier 2 or tier 3 perspective,
transport, particularly large pipes, seems prohibitively expensive. When
you receive these loops at or below cost due to Ma Telco's subsidization of
those loops, it is very possibly a non-issue to arrange for 'large' circuits,
peering or otherwise, as long as the capacity is there.

  I think your perspective may be skewing your judgement somewhat.

  In my experience, presence at the same facility is only a peering
enhancer for local and regional ISPs, who would very possibly not peer at
all if there were a loop involved. The larger carriers have already made
their arrangements.

  --msa

10

Ok, my turn to weigh in on this. :slight_smile:

First, can we stipulate that the "big players"
have to peer somewhere?

As I see it, there are two extremes:

1) a mesh of point-to-point circuits between sites,
   (SONET, dark fiber, metro-gigE, etc.)

2) common colocation with local private links between routers

On the whole, option 2 seems easier to manage and potentially
less expensive. Here's why:

- There can be problems getting circuits between carriers.
  I once heard from an engineer at one carrier-owned ISP
  that a private peering circuit to another carrier-owned ISP
  had been on order for over a year, because each carriers
  refused to allow the other to carry the traffic on its fiber.

- It should cost less to bring a few large circuits into a central
  facility and use the colocated router to multiplex the cheap local
  peering circuits, than to provision a bunch of smaller metro circuits.

- It's much quicker to run fiber across a room than get a circuit
  from any Telco. This makes additions and changes much easier.

Sure, a carrier-owned ISP likely can get ciruits into the colo
more easily, but it's not that expensive any more for others
to get in. There are a bunch of new companies building carrier
infrastructure and trying to sell cheap metro high-speed circuits
into popular buildings (I worked for one until recently),
and dark fiber is often available for even less.

As for the political question of peering policies,
I won't get into that except to say that it seems
an orthogonal issue to me.

Just my $.02,
  Steve

11

Majdi, I don't believe I'm going to have to do this.

associated with large LECs, IXCs and other companies in possession of
A) large amounts of fiber and/or b) large amounts of transport.

  They are also typically in posession of large amounts of
colo, usually their own, which they are already deployed into.
Would you rather deploy into your own colo, or someone elses,
particularly when that someone is in competition with you? Do you
want to be in a facility your competitors have access to?

Perhaps this is why neutral (n-th) party colo providers were given the
chance to bid on the contract. If the service is going to suck, it will
suck for _everyone_. And there are plenty of people who are dropping
equipment into competitors colos to provide service.

  *bzzt* Wrong again. In order for a large carrier, particularly
large access and transit ISPs to deploy into these facilities, they will
require transport equipment. ADMs and diverse fiber entrances into those
facilities are not cheap. They would have to fully deploy into each of
these facilities.

Yes, but the long term traffic growth rate is constrained at the edges for
the most part (edge being the local loop). Horror stories regarding speed
of provisioning between two large promising local ISP's would fill a book.

So looks like some people have figured out that provisioning a dark fiber
cross connect is much cheaper and easier to upgrade than say, getting new
STM-4 and 16's from various people in n points across their topology.

  The total equipment, fiber, and facilities cost of such a move is
likely to be much higher than arranging for private peering as needed.

Maybe. You can play financial capex games on equipment etc. Once you have
this in place, it's a sunk cost; the upgrade path is clear and much easier
than getting the ilec du jour (maybe another department) provision new
circuits.

you receive these loops at or below cost due to Ma Telco's subsidization of
those loops, it is very possibly a non-issue to arrange for 'large' circuits,
peering or otherwise, as long as the capacity is there.

Having been there, it is not a cost thing, it is almost completely a
lack of speed of provisioning at the local loop thing (aka the viscosity
of bandwidth is high).

  In my experience, presence at the same facility is only a peering
enhancer for local and regional ISPs, who would very possibly not peer at
all if there were a loop involved. The larger carriers have already made
their arrangements.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Having a Nx192 system in a facility where
there were lots of other large players and I could get a new connection
turned up by a cross-connect work order would be very useful.

/vijay

12

Majdi, I don't believe I'm going to have to do this.

  I was in a hurry when I wrote this, and I probably should
have clarified a bit more:

Perhaps this is why neutral (n-th) party colo providers were given the
chance to bid on the contract. If the service is going to suck, it will
suck for _everyone_. And there are plenty of people who are dropping
equipment into competitors colos to provide service.

  I was mostly responding to the Level(3) in the poster's comment;
if something like this were to happen, Equinix and PAIX are definitely
the preferred vendors in this situation.

  I think the distinction should be made between colo in the sense
the original poster was using it (AboveNet, Level(3), etc.) -- colocation
provided by someone who would typically sell you transit along with your
colocation. And colo in the PAIX/Equinix sense, where the vendor most
explicitly will *not* sell you transit, because they strive to maintain
a carrier-neutral environment. Many small providers are not typically in
the latter (although some very definitely are), but certainly exist in the
former. It's two different markets, so expecting that you are 'screwed' if
your carrier(s) of choice are not there is not really correct -- the carriers
will go where the customers are, regardless of where they might choose to
meet.

  I realize I was not clear on this earlier :slight_smile:

Yes, but the long term traffic growth rate is constrained at the edges for
the most part (edge being the local loop). Horror stories regarding speed
of provisioning between two large promising local ISP's would fill a book.

  Yes, but dark fiber is a perfectly legitimate metro option. The
cities mentioned in this thread are by and large major markets where dark
fiber is available. You can do this without any joint facility. 5 years
ago, it may have made sense. With the increasing availability of fiber in
these major markets, I'm not sure that the expenditures are justifiable in
the long term (beyond the next two to three years).

So looks like some people have figured out that provisioning a dark fiber
cross connect is much cheaper and easier to upgrade than say, getting new
STM-4 and 16's from various people in n points across their topology.

  I'm not disagreeing with this, for obvious reasons.

Maybe. You can play financial capex games on equipment etc. Once you have
this in place, it's a sunk cost; the upgrade path is clear and much easier
than getting the ilec du jour (maybe another department) provision new
circuits.

  Again, not disparaging the incredible usefulness of dark fiber.

  --msa

13

Vijay and Steve have pretty much hit it on the head as far as the
(apparently not-so-) clear reasons for this effort.

Majdi, what you don't seem to be taking into account is that this isn't
speculation on something that could or should be done, it's commentary on
something that has been done.

Regardless my opinion (and apparently most others') that this is an
advantageous move for the large providers, actions speak loader than words.
*They* judged that this is the financially sensible thing to do, and they
acted on this judgement.

- Jeb

14

Steve,

To summarize why folks want to do this:

Most of the really big ISPs peer at the OC12 or OC48 level with each other.
The provisioning interval on these large circuits is insane. There is
typically little or no cost - it's not really about expense, as the Big ISPs
are also big carriers, and the do meet in certain places, circuit-wise. The
problem is that the carrier arms of these companies move slowly, especially
for such large ciruits. They may also through up political roadblocks. And,
in those occasional cases where a large ISP needs to get a circuit to reach
another carrier, that OC-48 really hurts financially.

These ISPs want to meet in facilities that have room and power for all their
transport gear and routers. They want stuff like multiple entrance
facilities, high security, and other features.

They want to be able to just run x-connections to each other when they need
a new circuit. Of course, it's not quite so simple, because if someone is
running an OC-48 x-connect between two really big providers theirs lots of
other work to do, but its still a real time-saver.

I don't think anyone disputes the utility or engineering good-sense of this
proposal - I certainly do not. However, there seems to be an assumption
amongst some posters, that just because something makes good sense from an
engineering point of view, then it's a good thing. This could be a great
thing for the evolution of the Internet. It could even help the small ISP,
by saving significantly on peering costs, by identifying certain sites as
private interconnection sites. On the other hand, it could lead to higher
pricing, a willingness by the larger providers to work more closely
together, and a more exclusionary attitude towards peering. These would be
bad.

There's also an engineering problem with this approach. When folk
prodominantly peered at the public exchanges, they were point-of-failure,
and a MAE going down could be felt rather acutely across many networks. By
peering in the same facilities, there many be greater risk exposure for the
Internet as a whole. Sure, there's less risk of individual circuits going
down, but greater risk of longer impairment to routing due to fire, loss of
electrical power, or flooding in one of these sites. It's the risk of
centralization vs distribution. Just thought this was worth pointing out.
(And no, none of these connections will go through a central switch, it's
private peering. That does reduce the risk, which is why I do not mention
equipment failure as a possible risk)

- Dan

15

Non-Tier-1 players are by no means being excluded from getting into these
facilities - exactly the opposite. The facility vendors are pushing to get
them in. The only thing were weren't included in is the choice of
facilities; if the Tier-1s want to form a consortium (they call it that,
rather than a "cartel"), it's certainly within their rights to do so.

A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that when
cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. Oil, Electricity,
telecomm. However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because
the process for choosing them was closed. Does it make sense for all of
my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in the
same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away?

I don't see this as a bad thing. What you say about price equalization
followed by increases may be true, but it seems unlikely to me for a few
reasons.

1. There's a fiber 6glut.

There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." They will collude
on network build out and stop competing with each other. If you think
that's not true, think again.

2. Several of the Tier-1s in the consortium are relatively new players who
are still paying for their share of the fiber glut, in a market downturn.

3. Because of 1 & 2, transit prices have already plummetted this year. The
best price we can get now is less than 50% what it was eight months ago.

Competition is great. If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out
all
those strides in bringing loop and bandwidth charges down to a more
reasonable level. Competition brought us the glut and lower prices. A
consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices.

4. Tier-2s and Content Providers have already started peering aggressively
to avoid paying the Tier-1s for transit. This is likely to happen even more
aggressively if we have a smaller and better known set of places to meet and
peer.

See my answer to point 1.

This is even more compelling to the larger, older, more expensive Tier-1s.
If I'm in a building where three providers can give me transit at $100/Mb
and four have it at $200-300/Mb, the choice is easy. Equalization may happen
here, but it will be a good thing, not a bad thing, for the reasons

above.

Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price. There's nobody
to compete with, so why keep the price down? Then the
question is, which provider you go with. Hopefully the one that beats
everyone else up on customer service since that will be the only thing
that sets you apart from the other cartel members. But since none of the
providers have really good customer service, then you all begin to look
the same and we little guys start looking for alternatives.

In the end, Tier-1s need more transit business, and Tier-2s/Content
Providers need less transit (i.e. the growth rate is decreasing). More
supply, less demand. Prices will decrease.

The consortium will control supply at a lower level. Prices will
increase.

Curtis

16

A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that
when cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. [...]
However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because
the process for choosing them was closed.

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that uninvolved
parties should be able to dictate where and how large "promising
local ISPs" should interconnect? Maybe we should have a vote on
NANOG!

  "How does this choice of interconnection point make you feel?"

Does it make sense for all of
my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in
the same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away?

There's nothing preventing your provider from establishing additional
regional peering where appropriate; if they fail to provide the level
of service that you require you should vote with your wallet and select
another provider.

There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium."
They will collude on network build out and stop competing [...]
If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those strides [...]
A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices.
The consortium will control supply at a lower level.
Prices will increase.
Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price.
There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down?
If you think that's not true, think again.

Proof by repeated assertion, eh?

I'm really confused here. How did we go from "certain large ISPs
are working together to reduce the cost of interconnection amongst
themselves" to "there will be no competition between these large
providers?"

--Jeff

17

Curtis Maurand <curtis@lamere.net> writes:

A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that when
cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. Oil, Electricity,
telecomm. However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because
the process for choosing them was closed. Does it make sense for all of
my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in the
same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away?

See other mail on this same topic. The placement of the NAPs was not
a closed process. If you want to exchange traffic directly with
maine.rr.com, you should approach them directly and see if you can
work out an arrangement with them. Be prepared to make a business and
technical case that is appealing to both sides.

This may come as a surprise to you, but being at an exchange point is
not a guarantee that any particular organization that is there will be
willing to trade traffic with your organization. There's no advantage
to being at an exchange point other than quickness of provisioning
connections between companies; you still have to meet whatever criteria
your prospective partner sets forth for traffic exchange.

> I don't see this as a bad thing. What you say about price equalization
> followed by increases may be true, but it seems unlikely to me for a few
> reasons.
>
> 1. There's a fiber 6glut.

There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." They will collude
on network build out and stop competing with each other. If you think
that's not true, think again.

It's hard enough to get backbone providers to cooperate on legal
stuff, let alone collude to perform illegal restraint of trade. If
none of the big boys takes you seriously, it is probably not a
conspiracy, just confirmation that you're small fry.

But hey, we could all be wrong, in which case you can at least hitch a
ride of Vijay's flying pig...

                                        ---Rob

18

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that uninvolved
parties should be able to dictate where and how large "promising
local ISPs" should interconnect? Maybe we should have a vote on
NANOG!

  "How does this choice of interconnection point make you feel?"

  Thanks, but the choice of interconnection point affects us all whether
we are big telco's or not. I would not want to dictate where and how, but
having a little influence in where and how would be OK. I would want
nothing more.

There's nothing preventing your provider from establishing additional
regional peering where appropriate; if they fail to provide the level
of service that you require you should vote with your wallet and select
another provider.

A point well taken.

> There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium."
> They will collude on network build out and stop competing [...]
> If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those strides [...]
> A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices.
> The consortium will control supply at a lower level.
> Prices will increase.
> Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price.
> There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down?
> If you think that's not true, think again.

Proof by repeated assertion, eh?

  We can look at Opec for starters. The Steel price fixings from the
"consotium" of american steel companies during the 50's and 60's. What
makes you think telecomm is any different than any other business? There
have been numerous hand slappings around price fixing by "consortiums"
throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's.

I'm really confused here. How did we go from "certain large ISPs
are working together to reduce the cost of interconnection amongst
themselves" to "there will be no competition between these large
providers?"

My paranoia about large companies getting too close together. :slight_smile:

Curtis

19

Companies don't have to join OPEC to sell oil.

Companies don't have to join a Steel consortium to make or sell Steel.

If UUNet and Sprint didn't peer the Internet would no longer function
in the way we expect.

There is a fundamental business here in that ISP's are _required_ to
do business with each other in order to make the Internet work as users
expect. ISP's will always have business ties to each other, in the
form of paid/free transit/peering. Making that go away makes it all
cease to work, completely.

So, let's try again. These people already do business with each other,
and are forced to by the technology, and customer expectations. They
are trying to reduce their costs. What's the problem?

If down the road a _qualified_ peer is rejected from these spots
because "we don't like you" then you might have a case.

20

[..]

  Thanks, but the choice of interconnection point affects us all whether
we are big telco's or not. I would not want to dictate where and how, but
having a little influence in where and how would be OK. I would want
nothing more.

[..]

Would you like fries with that?