Slashdot Mirror
How Networks Interact — Peering and Transit Explained
Raindeer writes to share his article about peering and transit between networks, which begins:
"In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously told BusinessWeek, 'What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that...Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?'
The story of how the Internet is structured economically is not so much a story about net neutrality, but rather it's a story about how ISPs actually do use AT&T's pipes for free, and about why AT&T actually wants them to do so. These inter-ISP sharing arrangements are known as 'peering' or 'transit,' and they are the two mechanisms that underlie the interconnection of networks that form the Internet. In this article, I'll take a look at the economics of peering and transit in order to give you a better sense of how traffic flows from point A to point B on the Internet, and how it does so mostly without problems, despite the fact that the Internet is a patchwork quilt of networks run by companies, schools, and governments."
That's a good basic description. But those details aside, I'm surprised at Whitacre's statement. He either doesn't understand these concepts and is allowing AT&T to get screwed over by other network operators. Or he understands his contractual obligation to transfer packets for peer networks, but he wants to pry those packets open and charge the owners of those packets (which which he has no contractual relationship) additional fees.
In the first case, he should be removed from his position by the shareholders ASAP, as he is damaging his companies profits. In the second case, he should be removed ASAP and charged with racketeering as well.
If I hire trucking company A to cary my packages, and they subcontract with B to actually haul them, what B (Whitacre) is doing is prying open my parcels in the back of his truck, finding my name and address and threatening not to deliver them unless I pay him as well. We drove the Mob out of the trucking business years ago.
Have gnu, will travel.
At least the cellphone carriers only overcharge *one* end of the conversation for airtime. These beggers are arguing that they should get to charge BOTH ends the full price of the traffic.
The difference between transit and peering is explained on the first page of the article. Congratulations for posting before reading even that far.
if AT&T decides to be an ass, it's beneficial for the big players to just avoid AT&T and call their bluff. You can't sell bandwidth that doesn't go anywhere, and AT&T is hoping that companies will just roll over and not realize that they add value.
Seems like the kind of thing Google would be liable to do... teach the ISPs a lesson and whatnot. If Google just avoided AT&T's network for a day, I guarantee that concessions would be made.
Bandwidth is already purchased at both ends - Slashdot pays for bandwidth, I pay for bandwidth, and it works. AT&T can't triple-dip.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
...is a fundamental conflict of interest.
When AT&T said "What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free.", they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--] would like to do is to use my [AT&T -- connection provider & content provider -- ] pipes free.
Now, if AT&T separated the connection service from the content, I think we could put a fair and equitable system in place. But as long as AT&T co-mingles the connection service (i.e. infrastructure) with any other service they provide they will never find it in their interest to give competitors equal access to the connection. This is easy enough to predict. Simply look at the current state of DSL providers that have to use AT&T's wires. They are practically non-existent. If AT&T is unwilling to allow connection competition and have the ability to avoid it, obviously they will be equally unwilling to allow search engine competition or digital TV competition or any other service they choose to get into or provide via partner arrangements.
I am no fan of increased government regulation, but if we end up with non net neutrality then we absolutely need government regulation that will set standard fees for network service costs to be paid to the infrastructure provider AND AT&T (and Comcast and DirecPC and everyone else) must be forced to separate the infrastructure business from the service business.
As an aside, I think the FCC should also require an accounting for the high speed infrastructure that AT&T and others promised when they gladly took advantage of the incentives they were given to build such an infrastructure and then never did. Had they kept their promise, it's likely we would not have the "PtP problem" (if it even exists) they are using to push the tiered internet idea.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.