Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

[Alex Rubenstein]

> 1. Level 3 is probably annoyed at Cogent for doing the extremely low cost 
> transit thing, thus putting price pressures on other providers - including 
> them. So they declared war.
Is this wrong? Two sides: a) cogent is directly responsible for the 
accelerated pace of transit pricing errosion, by almost an order of 
magnitude when they started. b) perhaps someone else would have done it?


> 2. Level 3's assault method is to drop peering with Cogent, in hopes this 
> will force Cogent to purchase transit to them in some fashion (does Level 3 
> have an inflated idea of their own worth?), also forcing them to raise prices 
> and hopefully (for Level 3) returning some stability to the market.
I think I'd bet that if L3 depeered Cogent, the last place cogent would go 
to buy transit to L3 would be L3.


> 3. Cogent's counter-attack is to instead offer free transit to all single 
> homed Level 3 customers instead, effectively stealing them (and their 
> revenue) from Level 3... and lowering the value of Level 3 service some 
> amount as well.
This is a free enterprise machine we live in. I laud Cogent for this 
action. It shows chutzpah (see: cajones).


> 4. Next move, if they choose to make one, is Level 3's.
I agree with the Honorable Mr. Steenbergen. I will be watching 
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=LVLT


> Fun. I think I'll stay in the trenches.
It will be fun, until the point at which this happens, and the depeered 
sues the depeeree. It will then become further fun when a unwise, 
uneducated judge in a court of equity will enter a status-quo injunction, 
forcing the two parties to peer.

Tis what we need: court enforced peering.

I can't imagine how this could happen, however.

(please be sure you detected the sarcasm in the last statement).

--
Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben
Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net