Saturday, October 08, 2005


FIRST AMENDMENT: Business dispute shuts down one-fifth of Internet


Business disputes among large Internet service providers which have the
potential the balkanize and shutdown the open sharing of information. IN
this case, one giant ISP -- Denver-area based Level 3 Communications, is
allegedly upset that a competitor, Cogent, is beating them competitive by
charging low prices for internet service. As a result, Level 3 decided
this week to "pull the plug" on any traffic from Cogent -- affecting
Comcast and Time-Warner/Road Runner's access to all kinds of websites. By
Friday, they had resolved the dispute -- but Level 3 said it would only
connect with Cogent until Nov. 9 -- unless the business dispute is
resolved. Level 3 denies it is trying to pressure a competitor to raise
prices and says the dispute has to do with the fact that it is costing it
too much to handle Cogent traffic and wants to charge Cogent to do so.
Until now, they have had a "peering" arrangement where each had agreed to
exchange traffic at no charge to the other.

Should the government forbid the shutting off of connections between
major ISPs? If so, on what basis? What is to prevent some ISPs from trying to
create "private Internets" where they don't have to share any traffic? How have
the wireless phone carriers worked out this issue? What are the implications
for the free exchange of ideas? What if a major news organization's website is
on one network -- say Level 3 -- and it has no other way to get its website to
non-Level 3 customers?,1299,DRMN_4_4142021,00.html

Level 3 settles Internet dispute

Net firms resume sharing each other's fiber-optic networks

By News Wire Reports
October 8, 2005

A dispute between Level 3 Communications Inc. and a major competitor over
prices and terms of their Internet service ended Friday, a battle that blocked
off portions of the Internet for thousands of users worldwide for more than two

Broomfield-based Level 3 and Cogent Communications Group of Washington, D.C.,
had stopped handling each other's Internet traffic Wednesday, meaning Level 3's
customers -such as Cox Communications and America Online - couldn't connect
with those of Cogent, which links 360 Internet service providers worldwide and
has 9,500 customers, including many colleges and universities.

Each company has its own Internet "backbone" - a network of high-capacity
fiber-optic cables that carry vast amounts of Internet traffic. These
fiber-optic networks link phone companies, cable companies and independent
Internet service providers, who pay Level 3 and Cogent for access to their

Cogent said Friday that Level 3 again was accepting its traffic.

"We are pleased that Level 3 has taken (this step) to restore full Internet to
their customers and ours. We welcome this move and hope and expect the peering
connections will be maintained," Cogent spokesman Jeff Henriksen said.

Level 3 officials were not immediately available for comment.

Cogent Chief Executive David Schaeffer said earlier Friday that Internet users
had been blocked from millions of Web sites and e-mail communication for Cogent
customers had been disrupted. He said 15 percent to 17 percent of the Internet
was affected.

The dispute involves prices and the traffic Cogent puts on Level 3's network.

"They have been dumping a lot of traffic on the network," Level 3 President
Kevin O'Hara said earlier Friday. "It's way out of balance to what we have been
sending them."

Cogent isn't overloading the Level 3 network, Schaeffer said. Level 3 is trying
to get Cogent to raise its prices for Internet bandwidth, which are lower than
Level 3's, he said.

"Level 3 basically said they can't sell at our price point," said Schaeffer,
who said his company's customer base is growing 250 percent a year. "They
wanted Cogent to stop what they effectively consider a price war."

Cogent charges customers $10 per megabit for network access, below the market
average of $60 per megabit.

Schaefer said Level 3 pulled the plug on peering - the practice of exchanging
Internet traffic with peers, or other companies with bandwidth - when Cogent
refused to raise its prices.

"That is absolutely ludicrous," O'Hara said. "We've put a huge premium on the
ethics of how we do business."

The cutoff affected Time Warner Inc.'s RoadRunner Internet subscribers
Thursday, though service was rerouted, Time Warner Cable spokesman Keith
Cocozza said. He said TWC's 4.3 million high-speed Internet subscribers may
have been affected for about eight hours.

Cogent-Level 3 Peering Spat Ends.for Now,1895,1868765,00.asp

October 7, 2005

By Ben Charny

Network operator Cogent said Friday that rival Level 3 "has taken the necessary
actions" to once again carry its customers' Internet traffic, a sign that days
old service disruptions for a significant number of Internet users are over,
for now.

As been reported, Level 3 Communications, a major Internet network operator,
has since Wednesday refused to make room for traffic from rival Cogent because
of an ongoing dispute about financial arrangements. The nasty turn has
disrupted Internet service for between five and 10 of Cogent's customers since
about Wednesday, Cogent estimates.

On Friday afternoon, Cogent said Level 3 has restored all peering connections.
Level 3, in a statement, said it's done so in order to let Cogent customers
make alternative arrangements. "We will maintain this connection until 6:00
a.m. ET, November 9, 2005," Level 3 wrote in a statement.

"We are pleased that Level 3 has taken the necessary actions to restore the
full Internet to their customers and ours," Cogent wrote in its statement. "We
welcome this move and hope and expect the peering connections will be
maintained and a productive dialogue established."

Click here to read more about the spat between Level 3 and Cogent.

A Cogent spokesman, Jeff Henriksen, was asked whether service had been resumed
to the customers impacted.

He wrote in an e-mail that "to date, there has been no dialogue between the two
parties other than notification that the connections were being restored," and
wouldn't comment further.

The apparent turn for the better in the spat follows an outcry for the U.S.
government to regulate traffic-swapping arrangements between major
communications providers.

These agreements, as the experiences of the last few days shows, are so key
that they can bring Internet traffic to a halt for significant amounts of

Critics fear that more of these spats between operators will erupt, cutting off
even more people.

Such spats also bolster arguments from a number of European governments that
are calling for the United States to relinquish its unilateral control over
Internet governance, in favor of a new body. The United States opposes the

Click here to read more about how European countries think the Internet should
be governed.

In the days since the spat became public, U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey,
D-Mass., has suggested the Federal Communications Commission, the nation's
utility regulator, consider stepping into the fray if the infighting between
providers goes on.

Markey, a House Telecommunications Subcommittee member, told The Boston Globe
that the "FCC must be prepared to take steps to assure continuity of service to

An FCC representative did not return a call seeking comment.

Check out's Infrastructure Center for the latest news, views and
analysis on servers, switches and networking protocols for the enterprise and
small businesses.

Copyright (c) 2005 Ziff Davis Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.


The articles above are copyrighted material, the use of which may not have
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available
in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First
Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S.
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the
material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog
for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?