Telecom's "peering" change of heart really isn't
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/EA57668828E0FEEFCC2572AC0070D766 "While emphasing that it's still early days for the proposal and details need to be worked out, Marshall says providers would pay for circuits into Telecom's network, and the incumbent would reciprocate for connections towards providers." How is this an improvement on the current situation? They're not making use of existing peering infrastructure, they're just making other providers pay for a (Telecom-supplied) connection into Telecom's network, which is an option that's always been available to anyone willing to spend the money. Here's hoping that they get told that anything less than true neutral peering isn't good enough. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
On 29/03/2007, at 11:29 AM, Matthew Poole wrote:
"While emphasing that it's still early days for the proposal and details need to be worked out, Marshall says providers would pay for circuits into Telecom's network, and the incumbent would reciprocate for connections towards providers."
Which is not entirely different to say, buying a 'circuit' so you can peer across the WIX. Obviously there is a big difference in the nature of the circuit provider and Telecom though!
How is this an improvement on the current situation? They're not making use of existing peering infrastructure, they're just making other providers pay for a (Telecom-supplied) connection into Telecom's network, which is an option that's always been available to anyone willing to spend the money.
In which case other providers will make their own choice as to whether or not it makes sense for them to interconnect in this way.
Here's hoping that they get told that anything less than true neutral peering isn't good enough.
That's assuming of course that it is desirable to _mandate_ that all providers peer. Sounds like a dangerous proposition to me. Particularly given there are no common and widely accepted definitions of what peering and other related terms actually mean, where 'widely' encompasses the whole of industry. The real worry here is that if Telecom were to end up running with a faux-peering setup, that they successfully use it as a 'see, we are good and we peer!' bargaining chip in any regulatory discussion. All in all I think this is a positive step forward, but let's not read too much into it just yet. Cheers, Jonny.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Jonny Martin wrote:
That's assuming of course that it is desirable to _mandate_ that all providers peer. Sounds like a dangerous proposition to me.
Why not mandate that any ISP with more than xx,000 users must peer through the IXs? That's a nice, objective test, and in any case the only ISPs of significance that would be affected by such an instruction are the ones owned by TCL and TCNZ. Everyone else already peers. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
Matthew Poole wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Jonny Martin wrote:
That's assuming of course that it is desirable to _mandate_ that all providers peer. Sounds like a dangerous proposition to me.
Why not mandate that any ISP with more than xx,000 users must peer through the IXs? That's a nice, objective test, and in any case the only ISPs of significance that would be affected by such an instruction are the ones owned by TCL and TCNZ. Everyone else already peers.
Every ISP at Every IX? Does it end at ISPs? What about universities, for instance? What about satellite networks where the uplink isn't necessarily NZ based? Are you going to pay for my long haul circuits to Palmy? Doesn't sound like it would work so well, to me. If we said only the "major" IXs, what happens when the poor guy in Christchurch signs up his XX,000th customer and is forced to peer... but isn't getting access to the Big Boys? Regulated peering sounds very scary to me...
Matthew Poole wrote:
How is this an improvement on the current situation? They're not making use of existing peering infrastructure, they're just making other providers pay for a (Telecom-supplied) connection into Telecom's network, which is an option that's always been available to anyone willing to spend the money.
Says who? Juha, while we all love him, often reports things with an implied slant which is not always correct. Private interconnection between carriers has always been done on a cost incurred by each party basis. ie. We peer in two locations, I pay for circuit #1, you pay for circuit #2. It sounds like Telecom is offering something similar here. It may not require to be a Telecom circuit - if you, say, have DSLAMs located in a Telecom CO for LLU, then surely you're going to have your own backhaul anyway....
Alastair Johnson wrote:
Says who? Juha, while we all love him, often reports things with an implied slant which is not always correct.
You need to take that "implied slant which is not always correct" complaint to the source of the things reported instead, namely Telecom. -- Juha Saarinen www.geekzone.co.nz/juha | Skype: juha_saarinen blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/techsploder www.computerworld.co.nz | MSN: juha_saarinen(a)msn.com
Alastair Johnson wrote:
Private interconnection between carriers has always been done on a cost incurred by each party basis. ie. We peer in two locations, I pay for circuit #1, you pay for circuit #2. It sounds like Telecom is offering something similar here. It may not require to be a Telecom circuit - if you, say, have DSLAMs located in a Telecom CO for LLU, then surely you're going to have your own backhaul anyway....
But this is sounding rather like, "you, pathetic little ISP, will pay me, big ugly telco, to reach MY peering point, because your existing peering arrangements are not worthy of my favour." That doesn't sound like neutral peering to me. The whole point of peering is to reduce costs, not just add another way to hand money to carriers. A peering point is somewhere I can put a big pat pipe into to exchange traffic with lots of peers, *including* bilateral arrangements with transit providers, so I *don't* have to pay for lots of smaller (more easily congested) pipes to individual carriers, no matter how big and important they think they are. Having to be a Telecom customer to play is fine if you're already wholesaling DSL off them, but I'm getting rather tired of the attitude that an ISP is someone who wholesales off Telecom that seems to permeate most of these discussions. What about the rest of us who are doing stuff that doesn't involve sponging off Telecom infrastructure? -- don
[it's 4am - I'm bored] Don Stokes wrote:
But this is sounding rather like, "you, pathetic little ISP, will pay me, big ugly telco, to reach MY peering point, because your existing peering arrangements are not worthy of my favour."
Perhaps. It's also very common for large carriers (of the telco and Internet kinds) to interconnect this way and not over public fabric. The majority of traffic in the US is exchanged via private links; and a significant amount in Europe as well. A hefty chunk of the traffic LINX 'moves' is private interconnects.
That doesn't sound like neutral peering to me. The whole point of peering is to reduce costs, not just add another way to hand money to carriers.
Interestingly, peering often adds costs or is not that much cheaper than transit. When transit falls to $10/mbps levels here (heh), you might find people giving up on peering. The ridiculously cheap transit prices in the US vs. the cost of building your own infrastructure to IXes has pushed a number of players to not bother with peering. Not to say that mass interconnection is bad.
A peering point is somewhere I can put a big pat pipe into to exchange traffic with lots of peers, *including* bilateral arrangements with transit providers, so I *don't* have to pay for lots of smaller (more easily congested) pipes to individual carriers, no matter how big and important they think they are.
Nobody's making you pay for circuits to other providers - if you're in a common location with your own infrastructure, you could interconnect. If you're not, well, nobody is MAKING you interconnect. You might find it's cheaper and beneficial for your business to do so... or you might not.
Having to be a Telecom customer to play is fine if you're already wholesaling DSL off them, but I'm getting rather tired of the attitude that an ISP is someone who wholesales off Telecom that seems to permeate most of these discussions.
Perhaps ISPs should stop focusing on being Telecom (re|whole)salers and focus on building their own networks and access mechanisms - the constant PR spiel about how LLU is going to save the world because ISPs will be putting in 50 million DSLAMs doesn't help here.
What about the rest of us who are doing stuff that doesn't involve sponging off Telecom infrastructure?
I think that's awesome and more people should be doing it. Why aren't they? aj.
On Thu, March 29, 2007 11:29, Matthew Poole wrote:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/EA57668828E0FEEFCC2572AC0070D766
"While emphasing that it's still early days for the proposal and details need to be worked out, Marshall says providers would pay for circuits into Telecom's network, and the incumbent would reciprocate for connections towards providers."
How is this an improvement on the current situation? They're not making use of existing peering infrastructure, they're just making other providers pay for a (Telecom-supplied) connection into Telecom's network, which is an option that's always been available to anyone willing to spend the money. Here's hoping that they get told that anything less than true neutral peering isn't good enough.
what is your definition of "neutral peering" in this case? someone always has to pay for the circuit/cross-connect...when Level(3) and Sprint peer with one another, it isn't via a shared/public VLAN at Equinix/PAIX/etc, it will be via a private circuit (or cross-connect in an IX) where they share costs: (3) pays for the first cross-connect, Sprint the next, rinse, repeat. settlement-free interconnect is never free (as in beer), there is always CAPEX/OPEX involved (hardware, MRC, power, NOC, etc). /joshua -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. - Douglas Adams -
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, joshua sahala wrote:
what is your definition of "neutral peering" in this case?
"I pay for my circuit to the XYZ IX, you pay for yours, we exchange route advertisements, traffic follows the shortest route..." As opposed to "I pay for a circuit to you, you pay for a circuit to me..."
settlement-free interconnect is never free (as in beer), there is always CAPEX/OPEX involved (hardware, MRC, power, NOC, etc).
Oh, that much is obvious. But paying for a circuit to a peering point, maybe with fees charged by the IX to cover the cost of running it (power, etc), is far different to paying for a circuit into the network of each and every provider with which you peer. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
On 3/29/07, Matthew Poole
Here's hoping that they get told that anything less than true neutral peering isn't good enough.
The question is what does the telling, mandate by the state is how carriers have been regulated for ever, and not alltogether successfully... The hope has been that competition would allow the market (mainly the customers) inform behaviour. Unfortunately, the customer suffers from the "seen/unseen" dichotomy and they don't see peering as a significant issue, what they see works, even badly, and they're mostly happy with that. We elect individuals to specialise in this area on our behalf and it was sad to see David Cunliffe parroting the Telecom line about "peering is complex." Umm, if it was, would so many small players and, lo!, even customers be doing it? Lets separate peering from Telecom and say the former is simple, the latter complex. As for regulation, there is the Commerce Act, which talks about the use of market power to suppress competition. Well, the only people who don't peer (in the APE/WIX bilateral permissionless way) are, oddly, large incumbents. Could be coincidence, but comments like Don's suggest there is an issue of market power that can lead to demands others cannot make. Not that this is something ComCom has ever AFAIK investigated, perhaps its unseen by them as an issue. The "Bill & Keep" model, where you charge your customers and don't attempt to indirectly charge the customers of other suppliers, is achieving more traction. What ever costs autonomous operators incur, they charge their customers. So if your customers are pulling/pushing a lot of traffic from somewhere/someone else, minimise the costs or charge your customers. The idea that someone else is responsible for the costs your customers incur is the wildest economic externality I've ever seen swallowed, TCO excepted of course. Matthew Bolland's comments from the cover of Telecommunications Review are at best ironic, "If ISPs choose to use overseas connections for national transit when, for half the price they can buy our national service, then that is their choice." And its a choice that TCL makes when it prefers to take RNZ from their US server than take it locally... I guess choosing the higher cost option is only stupid when you're smaller than them.
Matthew Poole
Hamish. -- http://del.icio.us/Hamish.MacEwan
participants (7)
-
Alastair Johnson -
Don Stokes -
Hamish MacEwan -
Jonny Martin -
joshua sahala -
Juha Saarinen -
Matthew Poole