[peterwwillis]

"Level 3 is ONLY sending the traffic to Comcast that Comcast is requesting; it is THEIR customers who are creating this demand for Level 3's customer's content."

This still misses the mark.

Netflix creates a service on Level3 that Comcast customers want. So Netflix/Level3 are responsible for making a product that people want to use, and Comcast customers are responsible for wanting to use that product and increasing bandwidth use. Neither Level3 nor Comcast want to pay more money just because Netflix and Comcast customers want to use more tubes, so both Level3 and Comcast wash their hands of any responsibility for the networks they both run.

In a very real sense, both Level3 and Comcast are equally responsible for the increase in traffic [in this case]. Yet neither seem to accept their share in the cost. If it's because it's hard for Level3 to prove, they should put up some money to shore up the connection, and then write a public letter to Comcast customers telling them how Comcast is shorting them and to get angry.

(Sadly, many customers have no alternative provider, so their only option would be to quit the internet, and nobody's going to do that)

[forgottenpass]

Yet neither seem to accept their share in the cost.

It seems like Level3 is ready and willing to go. Comcast is just leveraging their monopoly to get out of standard peering practices. They know that by causing a fuss the lookie loos will show up and say "oh my, a controversy, lets split the difference!" Bonus points if you can work in the phrases "right balance" and "fair share."

If it's because it's hard for Level3 to prove, they should put up some money to shore up the connection, and then write a public letter to Comcast customers telling them how Comcast is shorting them and to get angry.

An open letter after giving into their demands? Did you just tell me to go fuck myself? This is that open letter. If they do it after giving into Comcast the lookie loos will be all the more ready and willing to pull "compromises" out of their ass that don't solve anything but making them happy with themselves.

[peterwwillis]

> It seems like Level3 is ready and willing to go.

To go where? Not to their checkbook.

First they mention in the article how "usually" networks agree to upgrade parts of their network to handle additional interconnects, and don't pay service fees to each other.

Then they mention saturated ports, not giving any indication as to whether they have even attempted to expand capacity on their side.

We are also left to believe that this nonspecific, non-detailed post is not only completely genuine, but that it leaves out no details. Giving Level3 the benefit of the doubt, and not going based on my own enterprise peering experiences where Level3 consistently showed the worst reliability and performance, it's clear they're only showing you a small slice of the work involved to agree on peering and put in place the upgrades necessary, on both sides.

> An open letter after giving into their demands?

An open letter after actually spending their share of what they need to invest in the upgrade. Which, it appears, they have not.

> Did you just tell me to go fuck myself?

No... Where did you read that?

> If they do it after giving into Comcast the lookie loos will be all the more ready and willing to pull "compromises" out of their ass that don't solve anything but making them happy with themselves.

....You really don't know the meaning of the word compromise? One of them has to meet the other half way. Ideally both of them would do this at the same time, but in the bizarre reality of this business, both of them are being children, neither wanting to move first, it would seem from this writing. Too bad this is just one tiny public PR stunt and probably not the whole story.

Also, what it would solve is the issue at hand, and it would make everyone - both providers, consumers and customers - happy. If you can't see that, perhaps you have the same narrow-minded political pessimism that's causing this mess to begin with.

This whole letter is thinly-veiled fodder for consumers to bitch at their ISPs with. Even the comparisons, like the ones at the end about industry satisfaction, are just meant to feed into the stereotype of the evil broadband provider. The comparison is ridiculous, because broadband providers are held accountable for every network and server fuckup on the entire internet, as well as the general faults of an aging physical network that spans a giant continent.

[pdonis]

> not giving any indication as to whether they have even attempted to expand capacity on their side.

I guess you missed this part then:

"Six of those 12 have a single congested port, and we are both (Level 3 and our peer) in the process of making upgrades – this is business as usual and happens occasionally as traffic swings around the Internet as customers change providers."

[peterwwillis]

Didn't miss it. And it would seem that has nothing to do with Comcast. Just read the paragraph again. They have 6 peers who are using a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port and somehow (who'da thunk?) it is congested. So they are upgrading their one port that is degrading traffic for six peers.

They're right, it is business as usual, and you do have to change ports as traffic flows change. This has nothing to do with Level3 and Comcast's (apparent?) failure to reach consensus on a peering agreement, or if either of them has invested anything in it.

[BrechtVds]

As I understand it there are 6 peers with the following situation:

  - Between 1 to 20 ports between Level3 and that peer
  - 1 of those ports is congested
  - They are handling the upgrade together, which is business as usual.

Then there are 6 other peers with the following situation:

  - Between 1 to 20 ports between Level3 and that peer
  - Almost all of those ports are congested
  - The peer refuses to augment capacity

"Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfil the requests their customers make for content."

[pdonis]

> They have 6 peers who are using a single 10 Gigabit Ethernet port

No, they have 6 peers who have a single congested port each. It's a different port for each peer (the article says nothing about multiple peers sharing a single port), and I can't tell from the article if the single port for each peer is the only port they have with those peers. It might be, or it might not. Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the key point, which is that these peers are cooperating with Level 3 to upgrade capacity, which is not true of the 6 peers who have had permanent congestion for over a year.

[josephlord]

> Then they mention saturated ports, not giving any indication as to whether they have even attempted to expand capacity on their side.

How can they upgrade the capacity on their side? Suppose they drive 100GBit to the router that connects to Comcast. They can still only push 10GBit to Comcast if Comcast only make a single 10GBit port available. What they tell us is that they are ready and willing to upgrade their side and Comcast are not ready/willing to upgrade theirs.

> ....You really don't know the meaning of the word compromise? One of them has to meet the other half way. Ideally both of them would do this at the same time, but in the bizarre reality of this business, both of them are being children, neither wanting to move first, it would seem from this writing. Too bad this is just one tiny public PR stunt and probably not the whole story.

"Compromise" is a very bad long term strategy with extortionists, blackmailers, kidnappers and jackasses in general. "Compromising" with someone being an jackass is likely to lead to more jackass behaviour in the future.

[dec0dedab0de]

I'm pretty sure the article just stated that Level3 is willing to upgrade their equipment, but the broadband provider(likely comcast) is not. Are you suggesting it is a lie?