Comcast and Level 3 argue over Internet traffic

A SPAT between US cable television network Comcast and Level 3, one of the Internet's largest transit networks, is threatening to isolate customers.

Level 3, which is a Tier 1 network, is claiming that Comcast "violates the spirit and letter of the FCC's proposed Internet Policy principles" by asking for a recurring fee from Level 3 to carry traffic from its network. Essentially Level 3 is claiming that Comcast's demand for cash is violating the net neutrality principles proposed by the FCC.

Typically network operators such as Level 3 and Comcast work on the basis of peering agreements, essentially allowing each other to transfer traffic over their networks on a 'give and take' basis that is mutually beneficial. According to Level 3, Comcast has turned around and asked for cash to handle the traffic coming from Level 3 to its network, a version of events that is disputed by Comcast.

In a statement issued by the cable TV operator, it accused Level 3 of twisting facts, saying "Level 3 has inaccurately portrayed the commercial negotiations between it and Comcast". Instead the firm paints a picture of Level 3 wanting to take advantage of its position as a Tier 1 transit provider and handle a lower proportion of traffic than it sends to Comcast.

According to Comcast, "Level 3 wants is to pressure Comcast into accepting more than a twofold increase in the amount of traffic Level 3 delivers onto Comcast's network, for free." Comcast claims Level 3 proposes a 5:1 traffic handling deal, which is why Comcast offered a similar commercial solution. Comcast claims it is "happy to maintain a balanced, no-cost traffic exchange with Level 3".

As with all such disputes the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle, with Level 3 wanting Comcast to handle more than an even share of traffic and Comcast wanting some sort of financial remuneration to do so.

If what Comcast is saying is true, and Level 3 is asking for an uneven allocation of data transit on its network, then one can understand why Comcast is levying a charge on Level 3. The underlying question is why has Level 3 asked Comcast to handle more traffic? For decades peering has generally worked on the basis of a fair sharing of traffic and given Level 3's position as a Tier 1 network, it is Comcast that needs Level 3 in order to maintain high quality Internet connectivity for its customers.

It should be noted that Level 3 did not mention its request to Comcast to carry more traffic in its statement, and one has to assume that Comcast wouldn't publicly lie about another company.

Neither firm is particularly fond of net neutrality as it is likely to impact their revenue generation plans, so it would be incorrect to paint either as a victim or saviour. Regardless of how Level 3 dresses this dispute up, it isn't about net neutrality but rather a simple peering dispute, a relatively common occurance in the industry. Level 3 has had several peering disputes throughout the years, notably with Cogent, a large IP transit provider that it had at one point disconnected from its network.

Currently Level 3 has accepted Comcast's demands for payment under protest and both firms have said they are looking forward to negotiations later this week. Let's hope these two firms can settle their differences because if they can't, it will set a dangerous precedent for other networks to follow. µ