[sergiosgc]

If this is a game of chicken, Level 3 and Cogent should play it to the end game. They are powerful enough to get Comcast and the other ISPs to concede. Just null route any interconnect that consistently drops packets and fails to get negotiated for an upgrade. The catch? It must be done by both L3 and Cogent.

Comcast is playing the monopoly card against what is an oligopoly of backbone providers. Comcast isn't strategically as well positioned as their actions would indicate.

It is one thing for Comcast to have degraded Netflix service. It is a different thing to present their customers with access to only half of the Internet .

[DontGiveTwoFlux]

Except that it would probably violate their contracts to just stop services at an interconnect. It's not like Level 3 is losing customers or money from the congested interconnects. Their incentive to play hardball just isn't there.

[zero_intp]

Level3 and Cogent both bill the majority (by traffic volume) of their network consumers by utilization. This means that these congested pipes are actually costing potential revenue.

Obviously Cogent would be willing to cut off their own nose to spite their face, but Level3 plays a much more sane game.

Hardball by coordinating efforts of the backbone providers is somewhat thwarted by the coordinated efforts of the MSO's, some with their own backbones (VZ, AT&T). Cutting off Comcast would also invalidate a number of (government) customer contracts that require service 'to the full Internet'.

[sergiosgc]

If it violates their contract, doesn't a soft fail violate it also? Or will violate, whenever the rate of dropped packets goes above a given threshold. I view the hard fail as just speeding up the interconnect failure, with the positive effect of prompting action from the last mile ISP.

Whenever their performance drops towards part of the internet, their value proposition gets lower. You can view the value chain as

  (residential customer) <-> Comcast <-> Level 3 <-> (hosting customer)

Both Comcast and Level 3 have customers, in opposite ends of the currently centralized internet. The status quo is that each provider charges to the customers on their end. Comcast (and each of the other non-net-neutral ISPs) are eyeing the revenue stream on the other end of the pipeline. This revenue stream has historically not been owned by the last-mile ISP.

Level 3 and equivalents, by cutting off non-performant interconnects will hurt their own customers, of course. However, they are just speeding up the same effect being applied softly over time, by Comcast and equivalents. A softly failing interconnect moves revenue over to last mile ISPs, thus permanently lowering Level 3's value proposition. By failing the interconnect sharply, instead of softly, they actually improve the steady state of the system, in general (good side effect), and in particular (the real objective).

[mfisher87]

I don't understand what's so hard about "You can roll with us as long as you treat our rented infrastructure with respect." That sort of agreement exists in many industries. I get kicked out of my apartment if I trash it, even though I paid for it. I don't ask my landlord to split the costs of an upgrade to hardwood floors because I fucked up the linoleum (because "I ended up with more pets than I expected" or something), much less pay for it himself. I pay for it or I'm booted. If he did anything else, such as let destructive renters stay on his property or paid for their damage they were responsible for, what would be the point of renting the property? That's a terrible business model. Same thing here... Comcast is damaging Level3's customer relationships on purpose and refusing to pay reasonable level-of-service costs to rectify the problem and should be thrown off the network.

[pyvpx]

I fail to see how you find someone like Level3 or Cogent more powerful than Comcast. I'd like to understand your reasoning behind such a position. Comcast is insanely powerful: somewhat because of the eyeballs they have on their network(s) and mostly because of their regulatory/political leverage and influence.