Verizon Gets Snarky, But Basically Admits That It's The One Clogging Its Networks On Purpose
from the snarky-admission dept
So the war of words over interconnection has continued. Last week, we wrote about the back and forth between Verizon and Level 3 on their corporate blogs concerning who was really to blame for congestion slowing down your Netflix video watching. As we noted, Level 3 used Verizon's own information to show that Verizon was, in fact, the problem. Basically, in spite of it being easy and cheap, Verizon was refusing to do a trivial operation of connecting up a few more ports, which Level3 had been asking them to do so for a long time. In other words, Verizon was refusing to do some very, very basic maintenance to deliver to its users exactly what Verizon had sold them.Earlier this week, Verizon went back to its blog with another blog post from David Young, this one even snarkier than the last. Snark can be fun, but if the underlying message is completely bogus, you're going to run into trouble. In fact, Young's underlying message is so weak, that he more or less admits to absolutely everything that Level 3 was claiming in its post -- while pretending it's Level 3 that actually admitted fault!
Last week, Level 3 decided to call attention to their congested links into Verizon’s network. Unlike other Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), which pay for connections into ISP networks to ensure they have adequate capacity to deliver the content they have been hired to deliver, Level 3 insists on only using its existing settlement-free peering links even though, as Level 3 surprisingly admits in their blog, these links are experiencing significant congestion. Level 3’s solution? Rather than buy the capacity they need, Level 3 insists that Verizon should add capacity to the existing peering link for additional downstream traffic even though the traffic is already wildly out of balance.Except... no. Level 3 did not, in fact, call attention to its congested links. It showed that Verizon was the one making them congested by refusing to do the most basic thing that Level 3 had asked them to do: open up some more ports. The claim that Level 3 needs to "buy the capacity" it needs is simply wrong. As was quite clear, Level 3 has plenty of capacity. The problem is the bottleneck... and the bottleneck is Verizon. And Verizon is refusing to fix that bottleneck unless Level 3 pays up. And not the cost of the upgrade. Remember, Level 3 offered to pay the cost of the upgrade itself. Verizon, instead, is trying to change the nature of the deal, allowing its border routers to clog on purpose to force Level 3 to pay a totally new kind of fee to free up the bottleneck that Verizon itself created. It's basically acting as a classic troll under the bridge -- failing to deliver what it promises both sides of the internet market, unless it can squeeze a ton of extra cash from Level 3.
Most of the rest of Verizon's snarky post takes a fight that Level 3 had with Cogent a decade ago concerning peering totally out of context. In that fight, it's true that Level 3 cut off peering to Cogent, arguing that Cogent was using much more traffic than Level 3, but that was a true peering arrangement between two transit providers, rather than a connection between a transit provider and the monopoly provider of the end users (who has sold connectivity to those users with the promise that it will enable them to access content from any website). The traffic ratios argument between a downstream/last mile provider and a backbone/transit provider is ridiculous. The traffic ratios have always been way off in part because the broadband providers themselves have always offered more downstream bandwidth than upstream bandwidth.
So, Verizon sets up a world in which the traffic ratios are always going to be off... and then complains that the traffic ratios are off and thus it needs truckloads of extra cash just to connect up a few more open ports? Yikes. Verizon's snarky post simply confirms what many of us have been saying from the beginning. The company is deliberately letting its border router clog up because it wants to wring a lot more money out of other companies, based on a plan to twist old peering disputes between transit providers into a dispute about transit-to-last mile connections... when the traffic ratio has always been way off, in part because of how Verizon itself designed its network! That takes incredible hubris... or incredible market power. Maybe both.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: clogging, david young, interconnection, net neutrality, open internet, snark
Companies: level 3, level3, netflix, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's Verizon's customers who ordered the data, data Verizon promised to deliver them at high speed. Netflix sends it straight to Verizon at locations near where the data was requested, all paid by Neflix and delivered via via Level 3, and instead of saying "thanks for getting that to us" Verizon is saying "how dare you! You should pay us!" This is just all sorts of effed up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is pure extortion; a content provider buys access to the internet via his ISP at a certain speed or range of speeds (minimums, burstable max's, etc.) and rate per gb.
You buy access to the internet also at a speed and usage rate.
What the ISPs are trying to do is charge companies extra if consumers choose to use a larger percentage of their usage on them. This disregards the fact they those companies are already being governed by a set of contractual standards which determine their pricing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2014/07/23/fcc-broadband-speed-transparency/130 43983/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2014/07/23/fcc-broadband-speed-transparency/130 43983/
It will probably lead to a lot of false reporting and the data will just be thrown out... Most people will use their phones or a laptop with a horrible wifi card to do the test. The bottleneck wouldnt be the ISP. It'd be their wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ok then.
And I can sue you if I want.
You can sue anyone for anything at anytime. Being ABLE to sue and being justified and able to prevail at trial are different things.
Now if you'd like to explain the reason and evidence and show harm, great. But just saying "sue!" - meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok then.
If so, nobody is going to call it anti-competitive. It will be an emperor's new clothes situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for that. I almost fell for Verizon's argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
http://iamnotaprogrammer.com/Verizon-Fios-Netflix-Vyprvpn.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Willingness for Dialogue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Willingness for Dialogue
but, the sad state of affairs is, *most* sites of nearly any type don't allow either posts, or critical posts, much less warts-and-all free speech...
besides, hasn't it been shown we actually *are* foetal battery-blobs in the NSA's matrix ? ? ?
(okay, spel czech, i might have to give you foetal... aha! no, i don't! i retract the apology, it is a britishism, but it is a word, you POS...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hit Verizon where it hurts.... their bottom line.
Verizon sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know much about "Ma Bell" and "Baby Bells" but maybe we need some new players. Maybe economies of scale only work to a certain point. Maybe some of the biggest players need to be broken up so there is more competition in the market place.
Comcast is far too high priced. At half the current price they might be OK. There internet is great but there TV is crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I thought it was a widely available ISP after seeing so many people on it on irc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Verizon Wireless is reliable everywhere I go.
AT&T delivers my friends SMS messages hours late.
Sprint does not work at my house.
T Mobile sucks at my work.
I would love to drop Verizon, but I NEED their reliable wireless service.
I am sure there are lots of users in the same boat with their wired Internet service. They need it and Verizon is the only option.
Boycotts don't work when there are no alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hit the Bottom Line
If Netflicks stops all traffic destined for Verizon until steps up with connections, or Customers leave Verizon..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hit the Bottom Line
If their customers could leave, Verizon would never have pulled this stunt in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free market versus regulation
Personally, it's stories like this that sway me toward the side of regulating cable companies like public utilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free market versus regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free market versus regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free market versus regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free market versus regulation
If we had a competitive free market, we wouldn't be in this situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free market versus regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's only a free market if those paying bribes to government officials don't want complete control of a service/product.
Bribes are basically how companies such as Apple can have a monopoly and get praised for it, but Microsoft gets an anti-trust investigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ..asymmetric ..
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted- to-match-download/
I'm not sure 25/10 has been available to new customers recently, you could call them to verify that you'll get 25/25
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
retroactively prove it should be peering..
Verizo n preempted this already. Simple solution... boost upload speeds to match, which of course they don't expect anyone to use (or they have hidden caps on)... tada, now it's peering! Now onto making people believe the fact that they get paid by the customer isn't enough. Oh, right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: retroactively prove it should be peering..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: retroactively prove it should be peering..
When did G.fast receive standardization? April 2014. When is commercial launch expected now that standards were finished early (was expected no sooner than EOY 2014)? 2015. Is this tech going to impact cost structures when 1 gbps and pricing? You can bet your backside. 80% cost of install reduction vs. full fiber-to-the-home. Upload/download can be customized but as long as the fiber node is 100m or less you have 1 gbps at your discretion of upload/download. 800/200 or 500/500 simultaneous. Last Fall announcements hit that G.fast has been adapted to coaxial in addition to the work on twisted copper telephone lines. If Google can turn a profit on $120 ISP/TV bundle with cost of full fiber install then what is pricing with 80% of install cost removed using G.fast? $80 for an ISP/TV bundle? G.fast is the introduction of internal combustion engine for the old horse carriage. Buggy whip makers are worried and the barrier for entry is falling for content bundlers and producers. DTV purchase by AT&T has me ROFLMAO. DTV/DISH are today's version of AOL market moat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: retroactively prove it should be peering..
I'm aware of those lab tests. And standardization doesn't necessarily mean a lot. I'll believe it when I see it operating in real world conditions in a large deployment. I also highly doubt Verizon will be rolling that out to replace their DSL lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What. The. Fuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I maintain therefore that the "imbalance" is a fiction; level 3 is clearly offering to pay maintenance fees for its end of the bargain, verizon should be willing to do the same. increased bandwidth demands leading to more equipment in service leading to higher maintenance fees is an operational cost of engaging in the data delivery business. if verizon attempts to say that they cannot afford the maintenance fees the increased bandwidth would incur, then that just adds more proof to the assertion that verizon has sold customers bandwidth that it cannot deliver.
that is the bottom line, the crux of the whole dispute, the tl;dr: verizon has sold customers bandwidth that it cannot deliver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The word is "wring" not "ring."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
:-|
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 23rd, 2014 @ 6:39pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 23rd, 2014 @ 6:39pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd prefer Level 3 just cut the existing wiring and tell Verizon that if they want network connectivity into Level 3's ISP, they are going to have to pay for it.
If they want to peer, they have to deal with the free-transit, not treat Level 3 as a customer. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, that Internet Cake, how lovely it would be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ..asymmetric ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Wikipedia:
"A Virtual Network Operator (VNO) is a provider of management services and a reseller of network services from other telecommunications suppliers that does not own the telecommunication infrastructure.
These network providers are categorized as virtual because they provide network services to customers without owning the underlying network. A VNO typically leases bandwidth at the wholesale rates from various telecom providers in order to provide solutions to their customers. The VNO concept is relatively new in the North American market when compared to the European and Asian markets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Network_Operator
VNOs work with mobile networks. Surely they can work with cable networks too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's VNOs. The M is for Mobile, and we already have those (Net 10, Tracfone, etc). We need VNOs for fixed broadband.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can Level 3 become an ISP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can Level 3 become an ISP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As it stands, what we have is akin to total privatization of all roadways. This is bound to lead to situations where road-owner Verizon will blackmail burgeoning trucking company Netflix because it is doing too well, therefore having a large amount of trucks on the road. If Verizon wanted to close its roads to all Netflix's trucks then Netflix is denied access to the crucial backbone of its business model. This is never a situation where a corporation will act honorably, understanding that their product drives further innovation, yet is not actually entitled to the credit of those that took it further. Easy solution-- don't allow any private, profit-seeking-above-all-else, venture control any such fundamental resource. It cripples further innovation, and in the case of the tech sector, that is the last place we need to stifle. We'd all be lost without our smartphones.
So screw Verizon and their blackmail scam. Get rid of Verizon. Talking to other people should be a fundamental human right. Change that text we find so holy, yet was written long before a digital realm had a chance to even be considered.
Lastly, change the attitude that these silly narcissists have where they feel that everything they have accomplished was done solely by themselves. Got news for you, if you have learned anything from anyone other than yourself in your entire life, then you have been stealing the knowledge of the 100 billion humans that came before you. You are just the latest to piggyback on someone else's ideas. Few among us have ever had an original thought. Realize that your vision/product/whatever could not exist without the combined effort of so many humans before you, as well as those in existence today that ship your product, put roads there for your product to be shipped, drill for the oil to fuel the delivery vehicles as well as produce the asphalt it drives on, mine for the raw materials of your product, etc. Also, you did not invent language or numbers or computers or the internet or anything, really.
No one does anything by themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure Verizon doesn't have to provide more out of balance peer connections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon gets Snarky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VerizoNet
What are the peering relationships between Comcast and Verizon because this smells like collusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't "free peering". Free peering is equal exchange of backbone traffic. This is a tier 1 provider handing off data to a last mile provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On suing Verizon for anti-competitive behavior
But at least for now, that's the law.
It means that if you are not happy with Verizon playing shameless games with a service they provide and you pay good money for, bombard the congress and the FCC with your objections.
Jim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On suing Verizon
Arguing asymmetric traffic ratios or the nuances of interconnection is may be interesting but it does not address the central issue
This is fundamentally an anti-trust question. If Verizon operates in a competitive market, they can charge whatever they choose and whomever they chose. If the market is constrained, then Verizon cannot use a bottleneck facility to disadvantage competitors. This is the reason the Verizon vs Trinko ruling is central to the discussion.
Jim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]