Feeds

US broadband providers holding last-mile traffic ransom, ISP alleges

Consumers see 'permanent' network congestion unless peering partners pay 'tolls'

Business security measures using SSL

Consumer broadband providers in the US are deliberately ignoring traffic congestion on their networks, resulting in dramatically degraded service to customers, one major ISP has claimed.

The issue, according to a blog post by Level 3 Communications VP of content and media Mark Taylor, lies with the peering interconnects that link broadband providers with internet transport providers such as Level 3.

At least six consumer broadband providers have consistently refused to up the capacity of these interconnects to keep pace with their traffic growth, Taylor said, resulting in consumers experiencing network congestion that is effectively "permanent."

Level 3 currently has peering arrangements with a total of 51 other companies, Taylor said, including both other ISPs like itself and consumer broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner.

Of those 51 companies, he said, 39 have no traffic congestion problems. Their peering interconnect ports run at an average utilization of around 36 per cent or less.

Another 12 companies currently have peering interconnect ports to Level 3's network that are running at 90 per cent utilization for several hours per day. That means the links are saturated; they're trying to ram far more traffic in and out of Level 3's network than the current equipment can efficiently handle, resulting in dropped and delayed packets.

"Six of those 12 have a single congested port," Taylor wrote, "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."

But the other six of the 12 are different, he said. These companies don't just have one congested port; nearly all of the ports linking their networks with Level 3's are congested. Nonetheless, they refuse Level 3's requests to jointly add more capacity – meaning their customers will likely see their internet service continue to degrade as traffic levels grow.

And while Taylor said Level 3 is not naming names, he said all six of these bad actors are big broadband providers, the kind that offer "last mile" internet access direct to consumers. One of them is in Europe, he said, while the other five are in the US.

So what's the hold-up for these companies? According to an earlier blog post by Level 3 general counsel of regulatory policy Michael Mooney, some last-mile ISPs are now refusing to augment the capacity of their networks unless their peering partners pay them to do so, in a break with historical internet peering practice.

"Some ISPs agree to augment capacity on reasonable terms," Mooney wrote. "But other ISPs try to strong arm the content providers into paying by playing a game of 'chicken' with the Internet ... These ISPs are placing a bet that because content providers have no other way to get their content to the ISPs subscribers, that they will cave in and start paying them."

Notably, streaming video service Netflix inked for-pay traffic sharing deals with Comcast and Verizon last month, albeit with gritted teeth. "Comcast can simply refuse to provide capacity to any network at any time, constraining the ability for Comcast users to use the services they want," Netflix VP Ken Florance observed at the time.

The issue is just one of many raised in the debate over network neutrality that's currently raging among ISPs, broadband providers, online service providers, customers, and regulators such as the US Federal Communications Commission.

In March, Level 3 petitioned [PDF] the FCC to support a policy that would force ISPs to offer interconnection with other networks on "commercially reasonable terms," rather than imposing "tolls" or "gatekeeper fees" for access to their users.

"Some say network neutrality is a solution looking for a problem," Mooney wrote in his blog post. "We disagree." ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
Brit telcos warn Scots that voting Yes could lead to HEFTY bills
BT and Co: Independence vote likely to mean 'increased costs'
Phones 4u slips into administration after EE cuts ties with Brit mobe retailer
More than 5,500 jobs could be axed if rescue mission fails
New 'Cosmos' browser surfs the net by TXT alone
No data plan? No WiFi? No worries ... except sluggish download speed
Radio hams can encrypt, in emergencies, says Ofcom
Consultation promises new spectrum and hints at relaxed licence conditions
Blockbuster book lays out the first 20 years of the Smartphone Wars
Symbian's David Wood bares all. Not for the faint hearted
Bonking with Apple has POUNDED mobe operators' wallets
... into submission. Weve squeals, ditches payment plans
This flashlight app requires: Your contacts list, identity, access to your camera...
Who us, dodgy? Vast majority of mobile apps fail privacy test
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
WIN a very cool portable ZX Spectrum
Win a one-off portable Spectrum built by legendary hardware hacker Ben Heck
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
High Performance for All
While HPC is not new, it has traditionally been seen as a specialist area – is it now geared up to meet more mainstream requirements?
Security and trust: The backbone of doing business over the internet
Explores the current state of website security and the contributions Symantec is making to help organizations protect critical data and build trust with customers.