Cybertelecom Federal Internet Law & Policy An Educational Project

Industry: Level3

Mergers

Centurylink / Level 3

Application Filed for Transfer of Control of Level 3 to Centurylink. Docket 16-403. Comments Due Jan 23, 2017. Replies Due Feb. 7, 2017.

• CENTURYLINK, INC. AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. CONSOLIDATED APPLICATIONS FOR CONSENT TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 214 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.   Adopted Protective Order governing procedures to provide limited access to proprietary, confidential, or certain particularly competitively sensitive information filed in the CenturyLink/Level 3 Proceeding. (Dkt No.  16-403 ). Action by:  Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. Adopted:  01/13/2017 by Protective Order. (DA No. 17-64).  WCB  https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-17-64A1.docx
  https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-17-64A1.pdf
• CenturyLink likely to refocus consumer-business mix, strategy following Level 3 acquisition, Fierce Telecom Dec. 6, 2016
• Economics Seminar: Net Neutrality, Network Capacity and Innovation at the Edges, Bloomberg Oct. 31, 2016 ("CenturyLink Inc. agreed to buy Level 3 Communications Inc. for about $34 billion in cash and stock, creating a more formidable competitor to AT&T Inc. in the market to handle heavy internet traffic for businesses.")
• CenturyLink in Advanced Talks to Merge With Level 3 Communications WSJ Oct. 27, 2016
• CEO: Level 3 Deal Doesn’t Affect CenturyLink Data Center Strategy Review, DataCenteK Oct. 31, 2016 the acquisition would nearly double CenturyLink’s colocation market share in North America, according to Liz Cruz, associate director of data center infrastructure at the market research firm IHS Markit.

Level 3 / Time Warner Telecom

 APPLICATIONS FILED FOR THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF TW TELECOM INC. TO  LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, INC.   Granted the Applications to transfer control of domestic and international section 214 authorizations and the cable landing license. (Dkt No.  14-104 ). Action by:  Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau and Chief, International Bureau. Adopted:  10/24/2014 by MO&O. (DA No. 14-1543).  WCB (making no reference to impact on Internet backbone service market)

• FCC: Comment Sought on Transfer of Control of TWT to Level 3, July 18, 2014
• TWT itself boasted of its nationwide IP backbone, describing it as "best in breed" and "one of the ten most interconnected IP networks worldwide" tw telecom Executive Overview 4Q2011, Slideshare, slide 16, 24; TWT Investor Presentation, November 2003, SEC
• Level 3 Buys TWT, Tech Caliber, June 16, 2014
• "Level 3 to Buy TW Telecom for $5.7 Billion". New York Times.  16 June 2014.
• Level 3 to Acquire TWT, L3 Press Release June 16, 2014
  

Level 3 Acquisition of Global Crossing 2011

• In Re Applications filed by Global Crossing Limited and Level 3 Communications, Inc. for Consent to Transfer Control, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Declaratory Ruling, IB Docket 11-78 (Sept. 29, 2011) (merger approved without conditions on Internet backbones, over objection of XO)
  • Para 16: "We conclude that the proposed merger is unlikely to result in public interest harms in the provision of transport by Internet service providers (ISPs).  We also conclude that, while the merger will result in the loss of one Tier 1 ISP, the record does not support a finding that the merger is likely to result in “tipping” of the Internet backbone market, an increase in prices to supra-competitive levels, or lower service quality.
  • FN 58: We recognize that there have been changes in how Internet traffic is transported.  See Level 3/GCL Reply at 8–11 (arguing that Tier 1 ISPs are subject to new sources of competition).  In analyzing the potential public interest harms, however, we have assumed, without defining a relevant market, a “worst-case scenario” in which the transport services offered by Tier 1 ISPs are a distinct category of service."
• A Baker's Dozen, 2011 Edition, Renesys (Feb. 8, 2012) (according to the Baker's Dozen, Level 3 was the #1 backbone and GC was the #2 backbone)
• XO Communications Statement: Level 3 & Global Crossing Merger Not in Public Interest July 11, 2011.
• Level Crossing, Renesys (April 14, 2011) ("The percentages add up to more than 100%, since any organization serious about its Internet presence is multi-homed, i.e., has more than one service provider for redundancy.")

Level 3 Acquires Williams 2005

• 2005 Level3 acquired WilTel from Leucadia [Level3 History]
• 2002 Bankruptcy. When emerge from bankruptcy, acquired by Leucadia.
• 2001 Williams spins off Williams Communications
• 1998 Williams establishes Williams Communications. Offers IP backbone services.
• 1995 Wiltel sold to WCOM
• 1989 Wiltel acquires Lightnet's cable network
• 1985 Wiltel founded offering data services (doesnt appear to be Internet services)

Williams Comms Files For Chapter 11, Internet News 4/24/02

Williams may seek bankruptcy after all, CNET 2/25/02

Williams Comms. Thinks About Bankruptcy, Internet News 2/25/02

Williams Considers Bankruptcy, Optical 2/25/02

Williams Okay To Buy Ibeam, Opt 11/30/01

Peering

Agreements

• LEVEL 3 AND VERIZON ENTER INTO INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT Apr 23, 2015 BROOMFIELD, Colo., and NEW YORK, N.Y
• Bit Mile: IP Traffic Exchange Policy, Level 3 ("A party would be considered to be a candidate for settlement-free peering with Level 3 in the United States if it meets the following qualifications:…must have sufficient network intelligence tools to accurately measure or approximate the mileage (in terms of “bit miles,” as defined below) used on its network for all traffic exchanged over the peering interconnection points, and must have network management capabilities that enable the balancing of bit miles across the networks;").
• Another similar strategy is to use MEDs to balance route miles
• Rajani Baburajan, “IP Transit Provider Level 3 Signs Bit-Mile Balance-Based Peering Agreement with XO”, TMCnet, 10 January 2013
• Level 3 and tw telecom are now peering, bit mile by bit mile, The Daily December 2012

Level 3 / AT&T Dispute

• Level 3 Communications, Level 3 and AT&T Enter Into Interconnection Agreement (press release), May 11, 2015, available at (visited June 18, 2015) (Level 3’s Chief Marketing Officer stated “[t]his agreement will benefit Level 3’s and AT&T’s customers for years to come. With customer needs at the forefront, you enable a growing, secure and resilient interconnection environment.”)
• July 2014 AT&T and Netflix agree to direct connection, taking traffic off of Level 3 (or Cogent) links, resolving congestion problems
• Andy Fixmer, Netflix Signs Peering Deal with AT&T to Reduce Buffering, Mashable (July 29, 2014);
• Karl Bode, Netflix CDN Partners Soar in Latest Netflix ISP Rankings, DSLReports (Feb. 12, 2013);
• Jon Brodkin, Netflix users on Verizon and AT&T get raw deal, have little reason for hope, Ars Technica (Mar. 29, 2014).
• Robert Sorokanich, Netflix Lets People Know When Bad Streaming is the ISPs Fault, GIZMODO (June 4, 2014)
• Letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, From John M. Ryan, Level 3, Feb. 16, 2011 (responding to AT&T and NCTA filing).
• Letter from John M. Ryan, Chief Legal Officer, Level 3, to James W. Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President, AT&T, February 24, 2011
• Newsflash: It’s Not Really Louder Just Because It Goes to Eleven, AT&T Policy Blog (Dec. 2, 2010) (contrasting the Level 3 / Comcast dispute to the Level 3 / Cogent dispute)

Level 3 / Comcast Dispute 2010

• See Peering Disputes
• Level3 acquired a contract from Netflix to deliver Netflix content. Comcast claimed that this was a change, that Level3 had become the CDN of Netflix, and attempted to impose a surcharge.
• Press Release, Comcast and Level 3 Announce Long-Term Interconnection Agreement (May 21, 2015), (“We believe the agreement will benefit Level 3’s and Comcast’s customers for years to come . . . . Our companies share the goal of enabling a growing, secure and resilient interconnection environment.”)
• Parties
• Level 3 and Comcast Issue Statement, Level 3 Press Release (Jul. 16, 2013), ("Level 3 and Comcast have resolved their prior interconnect dispute on mutually satisfactory terms. Details will not be released.")
• Announcing the Netflix Open Connect Network, Netflix Blog June 4, 2012
• Scott Long, Alistar Crooks, Netflix OpenConnect & FreeBSD, BSDCan DevSummit, May 15, 2013
• Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, from John M. Ryan, Level 3, February 22, 2011 ("Level is not in favor of FCC or other government agency regulation ofthe hotly competitive Internet backbone industry.")
• Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Lynn R. Charytan, Comcast Corporation, Feb. 18, 2011
• Letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, From John M. Ryan, Level 3, Feb. 17, 2011~ (responding to Ch. Genachowski's statements during Congressional Hearing, "We also assume that you did not intend to construe the Open Internet Order so as to render it essentially meaningless as a tool to assure continued subscriber access to independent content and applications. As we explained in our letter to you yesterday morning (which you may not have had the chance to read before your testimony), interpreting the Open Internet Order to eliminate Commission review if a dispute is over any service, simply because it is arbitrarily labeled a “backbone service,” creates a gaping hole in the Commission’s ability to preserve openness in the Internet.")
• Letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, From John M. Ryan, Level 3, Feb. 16, 2011 ("Unlike Internet backbone services, which are highly competitive and do not need regulation, ISPs tend to have monopolies on both sides of the equation. On one side, most residential customers have only one or two ways to access high-speed broadband (often only through their cable TV provider). On the other side, content owners have no way to deliver content requested by a consumer other than through the consumer’s ISP. Recognizing this bottleneck and lack of competition, the Commission prohibited ISPs from blocking or placing discriminatory charges on the delivery of content that goes through the ISP to its customers")
• Level 3 Ex Parte Letter, GN Docket 09-191 (Jan. 14, 2011)
• Level 3 Comments on Comcast's Letter to the FCC, Level 3 Newsroom (Dec. 21, 2010)~
• Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast Responds to Level 3's FCC Filing, Comcast Voices (Dec. 17, 2010) ("Level 3 proposes mandatory settlement-free peering for even radically unbalanced traffic -- not only 3:1 or 5:1, but also presumably even 100:1. In other words, to preserve its own business model which may be failing in the marketplace, Level 3 contends that it is perfectly fair to shift all the going-forward costs of sustaining exploding Internet growth onto one network in a two-network arrangement.")~
• John Schanz, Comcast Continues Discussions with Level 3 -- Offers to Trail New Solutions, Comcast Voices (Dec. 17, 2010) ("We proposed a mutual and relatively modest investment that would allow us both to better understand the traffic, routing, and economic considerations. We also offered to keep the economics of the existing newly executed agreement at "no cost" until we mutually learned the actual costs of the new approach during this trial.") ~
• Joe Waz, Comcast Answers Today's Traffic Questions, Comcast Voices (Dec. 14, 2010 ) ~
• Comcast Corp., Comcast Voices Blog, 20 Q's - with Accurate A's - About Level 3's Peering Dispute (Dec. 7, 2010) ~
• Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast Responds to Level 3's Latest Press Release, Comcast Voices (Dec. 3, 2010) ~
• Level 3, Press Release, Level 3 Releases Statement to Clarify Issues in Comcast/Level3 Interconnection Dispute (Dec. 3, 2010)~ ("Comcast has said repeatedly that “this is just a good old fashioned peering dispute” and that Level 3 is just trying to gain “an unfair advantage over its competitors by gaining enormous capacity at no cost to itself.” Comcast’s characterization could not be more misleading. What is truly at stake is whether consumers should have unfettered access to all the content on the Internet without regard to whether that content happens to be owned or packaged by Comcast.")
• JT Ramsay, Comcast and Level 3: Internet Experts Bring Perspective, Comcast Voices (Dec. 1, 2011)~ ("this is a simple commercial dispute between Comcast and Level 3, not an issue about "net neutrality"")
• Level 3 Communications Issues Response to Comcast Statement, Level 3 (Nov. 30, 2010) ~ ("the fundamental issue is whether Comcast, as the largest cable company in the country with absolute control over access to its cable TV and broadband access subscribers, has the right to unilaterally set a ‘price’ for that access that effectively discriminates against competitors of Comcast’s cable and Xfinity content.")
• Comcast Corp., Correspondence with FCC Common Carrier Bureau Chief Sharon Gillette, (Nov. 30, 2010)~
• Joe Waz, Comcast's Letter to the FCC on Level 3, Comcast Voices (Nov. 30, 2010)~
• Joe Waz, 10 Facts About Peering, Comcast and Level 3, Comcast Voices (Nov. 30, 2010)~
• Joe Waz, Comcast Comments on Level 3, Comcast Voices (Nov. 29, 2010)~
• Level 3, Press Release, Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions (Nov. 29, 2010) ("On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider. On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions. ")
• Press Release, Netflix Signs Multi Year Deal with Level 3 for Streaming Services, Level 3 (Nov. 11, 2010) ("Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today announced that it has been selected to serve as a primary content delivery network (CDN) provider for Netflix, Inc. to support the company’s streaming functionality and to support storage for the entire Netflix library of content. As a result of the deal, Level 3 has accelerated plans to further invest in its CDN capacity. Level 3 will double its storage capacity and add 2.9 Terabits per second (Tbps) of globally available CDN capacity, which is in addition to the 1.65 Tbps that was deployed in the third quarter of 2010.")
• Press Release, Comcast Extends National Fiber Infrastructure, Comcast (Dec. 7, 2004)~
• Others
• Global Crossing FCC Exparte Filing, Presering the Open Internet, GN Docket 09-191 (Feb. 4, 2011) ("We began by addressing Verizon’s characterization of the Internet in its letter of January 13, 2011 to the Commission, noting that the Internet that Verizon describes is at least five years out of date. Verizon is correct that the Internet worked well up until recently precisely because it was comprised of a “network of networks,” each functionally segregated with different carriers performing different functions that when taken together formed the Internet. Today, however, carriers have integrated last-mile access, content, backbone networks, and content distribution networks or some combination thereof....f such practices continue unchecked, the Internet will experience significant disruption as carriers seek to leverage their respective positions in the Internet ecosystem in order to gain advantages over their competitors. The ultimate result would be to skew the development of broadband competition while undermining the interests of consumers in obtaining the Internet content that they want, when they want it.")
• AT&T and NCTA Ex Parte Letter, GN Docket 09-191 (Jan. 14, 2011) ("As the Commission’s approach to Internet policy has evolved over the last eighteen months – from a proposed rulemaking on net neutrality, to an inquiry on reclassification, to a net neutrality order – it has consistently emphasized at each step along the way that it has no intention of regulating the highly competitive market for Internet peering and other Internet backbone services.1 Despite the Commission’s repeated and unequivocal pronouncements, Level 3 has been attempting to convince the Commission that its newly announced net neutrality rules do, in fact, apply to Level 3’s dispute with Comcast over the terms of the parties’ peering arrangement.")
• Verizon Ex Parte Letter, GN Docket 09-191 (Jan. 13, 2011) ("all of the information disclosed publicly by the parties suggests this involves a run-of-the-mill commercial negotiation over the terms of a peering arrangement in which one party now seeks to obtain a negotiating advantage by converting the negotiation into a regulatory dispute. In any event, it is not a net neutrality issue, and the Commission should decline to inject itself into a business issue that is properly resolved through commercial negotiations.")
• Ex Parte Filing of Bradley Bopp, NationalNet, Adam Davenport, Choopa, Randy Epstein, Broadband One, Anton Kapela, CTO, Five Nines Data, Christian Koch, Meebo, Nathan Patrick, Sonic, Phillip Rosenthal, ISPrime, Adam Rothschild, Voxel dot Net, Steve Rubin, Layer 42, Warren T Sands, Rackspace Hosting, Dan Spataro, Net Access Corporation, Richard Steenbergen, nLayer Communications, Kevin Loch, Carpathia Hosting, Mike Leber, Hurricane Electric, Karl Zimmerman, Steadfast, to Chairman Genachowski, GN Docket 09-191 (Dec. 20, 2010) ("Traffic ratios were commonly considered by networks seeking interconnection in the late 1990s, where much of the traffic exchanged was subsequently hauled large distances, with disparities in route-miles traveled and associated costs. In contrast, today, large access and content networks interconnect at a number of carrier-neutral collocation facilities around the country, where technical practices are employed to ensure that data is transmitted to an access network at the location closest to its requesting “eyeballs”. Whether an access network receives traffic at these locations by way of a peering, transit, or customer connection, Comcast’s costs and infrastructure requirements for hauling this traffic back to a subscriber’s residence remain the same. Indeed, with the exception of Comcast, every major cable telecommunications provider in the United States has established peering relationships with large content sources, predicated on mutual benefit – such as improved reachability and direct capacity, where monetary settlement is not demanded by either party.")
• Letter Regarding Comcast Corporation and Level 3 Communications Dispute, From New America Foundation, Media Access Project,  Free Press, to FCC (Dec. 8, 2010)

• Hearings

  Starting at minute 1:51

  • February 16, 2011, House Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Network Neutrality and Internet Regulation: Warranted or More Economic Harm than Good? (Level3/Comcast Peering Dispute was raised as an issue)
  • Preliminary Transcript
    • Mrs. {Blackburn.} Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Let us talk about peering and interconnectivity. We know that these arrangements have never been regulated, and the FCC net neutrality order says that the rules do not cover peering. So Mr. Chairman, do you believe the Commission's new net neutrality order and its underlying rules govern the level 3 Comcast dispute?
    • Mr. {Genachowski.} Well, you said the order says that it doesn't change anything with respect to existing peering arrangements. It applies to Internet access service provided to consumers and small businesses. You are referring to a dispute that is occurring outside the Commission, a commercial dispute. I hope those parties settle it and resolve it but it is not something that we have facts and data on. I do think the order speaks for itself in the way that you suggest.
    • Mrs. {Blackburn.} All right. Commissioner McDowell, do you believe the FCC has the authority it is claim to govern interconnectivity agreements?
    • Mr. {McDowell.} Peering?
    • Mrs. {Blackburn.} Yes.
    • Mr. {McDowell.} No, ma'am.

Papers

• Daniel L. Brenner and Winston Maxwell, The Network Neutrality and the Netflix Dispute: Upcoming Challenges for Content Providers in Europe and the United States , 23 INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L.J. 3 (March 2011).
• Gregory Rose, The Economics of Internet Interconnection: Insights from the Comcast-Level3 Dispute (March 28, 2011) ("An examination of the circumstances of the Level3/Comcast dispute and comparison with the previous Level3/Cogent dispute casts doubt on the validity of the “bill-and-keep” model for internet traffic, and suggests that the “two-sided market” or “n-sided market” analysis more closely models the existing market structure. Using two-sided market analysis, it appears that while there is the potential for the market to resolve issues without regulatory intervention, there is also the potential for substantial anti-consumer outcomes in the absence of regulation.")

News

• Matthew Lasar, Peers or Not? Comcast and Level 3 Slug It Out at FCC’s Doorstep, WIRED (Feb. 17, 2011).
• Amy Schatz, “ FCC Chairman: Net Neutrality Rules Don't Cover Comcast - Level 3 Dispute,” Wall Street Journal , February 16, 2011
• What Does it Mean to be a "Peer"?, AT&T Policy Blog, Dec. 10, 2010
• Marquerite Reardon, Level 3 Pushes for Comcast-NBC Merger Conditions, CNET Dec. 17, 2010 ("On Thursday evening, Level 3 sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, asking the agencies to impose conditions on Comcast's impending merger that would require Comcast to allow Level 3 and other Internet backbone providers to interconnect their networks with Comcast's network for free. The company also asked that Comcast be required to connect to Internet backbone providers "on nondiscriminatory, fair, and reasonable terms (in any event no less advantageous than the terms effectively provided to its affiliates)."")
• Newsflash: It’s Not Really Louder Just Because It Goes to Eleven, AT&T Policy Blog (Dec. 2, 2010) (contrasting the Level 3 / Comcast dispute to the Level 3 / Cogent dispute).
• Adam Rothchild, Peering Disputes: Comcast, Level 3 and You, Voxel (Dec. 2, 2010) (“In the other corner, we have the financially-challenged Level 3, who’s re-invented itself once again (as seems to happen once a year), shifting a lot of sales focus from wholesale IP transit and infrastructure to CDN. ”)
• Steve Schultze, Trying to Make Sense of the Comcast / Level 3 Dispute, Freedom to Tinker (Dec. 2, 2010)
• Nate Anderson, Comcast: We bent over backwards to help Level 3 (those bastards), ars technica Dec. 1, 2010
• Daniel Golding, The Real Story Behind the Comcast Level 3 Battle, Gigaom Dec. 1, 2010
• Spencer E. Ante, Amy Schwartz, Web-Traffic Spat Over Netflix Highlights New Tensions, WSJ (Nov. 30, 2010)
• Susan Crawford, Bad Timing: Comcast, Netflix, NN, Cable Modems, and NBCU, Susan Crawford The Blog (Nov. 29, 2010) ("The takeaway from today:  No market forces are constraining Comcast – or any of the other major cable distributors, none of which compete with each other.  ")
• Cecilia Kang, Level 3 Communications Calls Comcast Fees for Netflix Feeds Unfair, Wash. Post, Nov. 29, 2010
• Brian Stelter, Netflix Partner Says Comcast 'Toll' Threatens Online Video Delivery, The New York Times, Nov. 29, 2010

Level 3 / Cogent Peering Dispute

• See Peering Disputes
• Timeline
• July 18: Level 3 sends letter to Cogent of its intent to terminate the peering relationship [L3 PR Oct 7 2005]
• August 31: Level 3 sends second letter to Cogent with its intention to terminate the peering relationship [L3 PR Oct 7 2005]
• Oct. 5: Level 3 terminated its peering connection with Cogent [L3 PR Oct 7 2005]
• Oct 7: Level 3 reestablishes peering connection with Cogent, with notice that it will terminate the connection in 30 days [L3 PR Oct 7 2005]
• Oct. 28: Networks agree to new interconnection agreement
• Nov 9: Day Level 3 planned to depeer with Cogent if negotiation did not succeed
• Level 3 and Cogent Reach Agreement on Equitable Peering Terms, PR Newswire (Oct. 28, 2005) ("Level 3 Communications (Nasdaq: LVLT) and Cogent Communications (Amex: COI) today announced that the companies have agreed on terms to continue to exchange Internet traffic under a modified version of their original peering agreement. The modified peering arrangement allows for the continued exchange of traffic between the two companies' networks, and includes commitments from each party with respect to the characteristics and volume of traffic to be exchanged. Under the terms of the agreement, the companies have agreed to the settlement-free exchange of traffic subject to specific payments if certain obligations are not met.") See Copy at Cogentco.
• Cogent's Standing Offer to Level 3: Turn the Connection Back On, Then Negotiate, Cogent Communications (Oct. 7, 2005) ("Cogent is willing to offer Level 3 free Internet service across our network to help alleviate their financial situation while also discussing appropriate traffic ratios. Cogent feels allegations of inappropriate traffic ratios have been incorrectly articulated by Level 3. In fact, it is Level 3 who requested that Cogent send more traffic across their network since Level 3 charges by the bit, and increased traffic flow helps them financially.")
• Level 3 Issues Statement Concerning Internet Peering and Cogent Communications, Oct. 7, 2005, PR Newswire ("Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network. It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business.")
• Papers
• D(3)peered: Just the Facts Ma'am, Rensys, at NANOG 2005 (slides and real audio)
• Kevin Werbach, The Centripetal Network: How the Internet Holds Itself Together, and Forces Tearing It Apart, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 343, 370 (2008) ("The Cogent-Level 3 dispute was an isolated occurrence affecting a small subset of Internet users. Changes in the backbone market, however, could break down the traditional peering equilibrium. The centripetal dynamics at the physical layer of the Internet operate effectively because there has been no truly dominant backbone. However, the possibilities for new arrangements are more acute today.")
• James Crowe, Regulation and Free Martkets Redux: Additional Insights on Regulating the Telecommunications Industry in the New Economy, 5 J. On Telecomm. & High Tech L. 487 (2007) (""We had our brush with a limited form of net neutrality when we attempted to de-peer a company called Cogent about six months ago. Perhaps you read about it and perhaps nopt, all I can tell you is that if you mess around with net neutrality you are going to get in trouble. We folded like wet cardboard and turned the connection up twelve seconds after I started getting calls from governors and congressmen who could not access the Internet.")
• James Crowe, Regulation and Free Markets: How to Regulate the Telecommunica- tions Industry in the New Economy, 2 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 429 (2003).
• News
• Level 3/Cogent agree new traffic deal, Register 10/28/2005
• Stacy Cowley, Level 3, Cogent resolve peering dispute, renew deal, Computer World (Oct. 28, 2005).
• Level 3 And Cogent Reach Agreement On Equitable Peering Terms, Level3 10/28/2005
• Report: Level 3 may end peering agreement, Bizjournal 10/18/2005
• Internet Access Dispute Cut Off Some Businesses, Wash Post 10/14/2005
• Customers Shocked By Level 3's Internet Disruption, Information Week 10/14/2005
• Dispute threatens to snarl Internet, Boston Globe 10/7/2005
• Finding a solution to the ISP wars, ZDNet 10/7/2005
• Hissy fit brings down large chunk of the net, Inquirer 10/7/2005
• Stacy Cowley, Level 3, Cogent Call Time Out on Peering Spat, IDG NEWS SERVICE, Oct. 10, 2005
• Web Backbone Carrier Level 3 Narrows Loss, Mercury 2/5/2004

Timeline

• 2011: acquired Global Crossing [Level3 History]
• 2010: Comcast / Level3 Intercon Dispute
• 2007: acquired Broadwing, the Content Delivery Network (CDN) services business of SAVVIS, Inc. and Servecast. [Level3 History]
• 2006: acquired Progress Telecom, ICG, TelCove and Looking Glass Networks [Level3 History]
• 2005
• acquired WilTel [Level3 History]
• Peering Dispute with Cogent
• 2004: Comcast & Level 3 agreement for Comcast to buy backbone services (transit) from Level 3 Press Release, Comcast Extends National Fiber Infrastructure, Comcast (Dec. 7, 2004).
• February 2003 acquired Genuity [Level3 History] and AS1.[AS1]
• 1998:
• Level 3 acquires Geonet, along with its peering agreements [CED Magazine]
• Level 3 acquires Xcom technologies, acquiring dial up customers[CED Magazine]
• changed name to Level 3 Communications, Inc. [Level3 History]
• April 1, 1998, Level 3 common stock started trading on the NASDAQ Stock Market (LVLT ) [Level3 History]
• 1985: Founded as Kiewit Diversified Group Inc. (KDG), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. (PKS). [Level3 History]

Content Delivery Network

• Christopher Newton, Laurence Lipstone, William Crowder, Jeffrey G. Koller, David Fullagar, Maksim Yevmenkin (Level 3), Content Delivery Network Patent WO2013090699 A1 June 20, 2013 ("A content delivery network (CDN) includes a control core; and a plurality of caches, each of said caches constructed and adapted to: upon joining the CDN, obtain global configuration data from the control core; and obtain data from other caches. Each of the caches is further constructed and adapted to, having joined the CDN, upon receipt of a request for a particular resource: obtain updated global configuration data, if needed; obtain a customer configuration script (CCS) associated with the particular resource; and serve the particular resource in accordance with the CCS.")

News

• LEvel 3 - TW Telecom Merger: what the Analysts Are Saying, Denver Business Journal June 16, 2014
• Level 3 Gets $500 M Investment From Warren Buffet, other Investors, CRN July 8, 2002 ("Billionaire Warren Buffett and two other investors have agreed to invest a total of $500 million in Level 3 Communications to help it fund acquisitions as the telecommunications industry consolidates. ")
• Buffet Joins Level 3 Investors, CNET 2002 ("Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway will acquire $100 million of the 10-year convertible notes. Longleaf Partners Funds is acquiring $300 million of the notes. Legg Mason is buying the remaining $100 million. The notes pay 9 percent cash interest and can be converted into common stock for a $3.41 per-share fee.")
• Level 3 to buy Global Crossing in stock deal, CNET 4/11/2011
• Peers or not? Comcast and Level 3 slug it out at FCC's doorstep, Ars Technica 3/2/2011
• Level 3 takes spat with Comcast public, CNET 12/1/2010
• Grant Gross, Level 3 buying Broadwing for $1.4 billion , Network World (Oct 17, 2006)
• Level 3 completes ICG buy, Bizjournals 6/2/2006
• Level 3 pays $1.08b to takeover TelCove, America's Network 5/9/2006
• Level 3 buying ICG for $163M, Bizjournals 4/18/2006

Level 3 To Buy WilTel, Network Pipeline 11/4/2005

Level 3 To Power EBay, Internet News 2/7/03

Verizon's Motion to Remove Merger Conditions Relating to Genuity - CC Docket No. 98-184., FCC 12/4/02

Level 3 Picks Up Genuity, ISP Planet 12/2/02

Genuity files for bankruptcy protection, CNET 12/2/02

Is Level 3 Interested In Williams?, Internet News 7/26/02

Level 3 Makes Play For Williams, Internet News 7/24/02

Level 3 makes $1.1 billion bid, CNET 7/24/02

Vision or folly? (Level3), CNET 6/17/02

Level 3: No plans for bankruptcy, CNET 2/1/02

Level 3 slammed by slack demand, CNET 1/30/02

Level 3 Pens Deal With Sony Digital, INews 1/2/02

Global Crossing News

• Global Crossing Yahoo Page
• Radio: Capacity Swaps by Global Crossing and Qwest: Sham Transactions Designed to Boost Revenues?, House 10/7/02
• Global Crossing Case May Be Ending, Wash Post 12/7/2004
• Global Crossing profits from bankruptcy, CNET 3/11/2004
• Global Crossing sale agreed, BBC 10/9/03
• Global Crossing Deal Faces Opposition, InfoWorld 7/21/03
• Global Crossing wins bid to continue exclusive talks, Mercury 7/2/03
• Global Crossing Seeks $150 Million Exit Funding, Excite 3/24/03
• Global Crossing Chairman Resigns, Wash Post 1/2/03
• SEC Orders Global To Restate 'Swaps' Wash Post 10/23/02
• Global Crossing to Restate Results Newsfactor 10/23/02
• Memo Indicates Global Crossing Chief Knew of Troubles, NYT 10/1/02
• Global Crossing Chairman Testifies, Wash Post 10/1/02
• Global, Qwest Staff In Hot Seat Tuesday, USA Today 9/26/02
• Global Crossing, Qwest Withholding Information?, CNN 9/20/02
• Global Crossing Memos Released, NYT 9/20/02
• Executives Derided Global Crossing Deals, Wash Post 9/20/02
• Global Crossing Sells Network, Internet News 8/9/02
• Global Crossing to sell fiber-optic unit, CNET 8/9/02
• Global Crossing Still Selling, Internet News 8/7/02
• Global Crossing To Create Own Plan, Reuters 5/29/02
• More Than 60 Want Global Crossing, Internet News 5/10/02
• Global Crossing fights contract ruling, CNET 4/15/02
• Global Crossing Execs To Face Congress, IDG 3/19/02
• More Than 40 Firms Are Eyeing Global, LA Times 3/11/02
• Fresh Interest in a Global Crossing Bid, nyt 3/6/02
• Global Crossing Sues XO, Internet News 3/6/02
• Gores May Bid For Global Crossing, Internet News 3/4/02
• Committees To Look At Global Crossing, Forbes 3/13/02
• Global Crossing Insiders, Wash Tech 2/28/02
• Global Crossing suit could spread telecom fears , USA Today 2/28/02
• Global Crossing shareholders to propose alternate bailout plan , Nando 2/22/02
• Much ado about Global Crossing , CNET 2/22/02
• Global Crossing to File Another Plan , NYT 2/22/02
• Global Crossing Paid Millions to Chairman's Firms, Wash Tech 2/15/02
• SEC's Global Crossing Probe Spreads to Qwest, Internet News 2/11/02
• SEC probe into Global Crossing crosses Qwest's path, NWFusion 2/11/02
• Qwest subpoenaed in Global Crossing probe, USA Today 2/11/02
• SEC, FBI investigating Global Crossing, Globe Technology 2/8/02
• Global Crossing Denies Improprieties, Internet News 2/4/02
• Global Crossing Denies Charge of Employee, NYT 2/4/02
• A Port in the Storm for Global Crossing?, Business Week 2/1/02
• Lucent Says Global Crossing Owes More Than Is Listed in Court Filing, WSJ 2/1/02
• Embarrassment for Andersen after Global Crossing files for Chapter 11, Independent 2/1/02
• Global Flameout, Business2 2/1/02
• VP warned Global Crossing about accounting practices (AP), NJ.com 2/1/02
• Global Crossing Became a Top Contributor Fast, LA Times 2/1/02
• The Mother Jones 400, Mother Jones 2/1/02
• Global Crossing owes Lucent $123 million, CNET 2/1/02
• IDT Says It May Want to Buy Some Assets of Global Crossing, NYT 1/30/02
• Bankrupt Global Crossing insists strategy was sound, Nando 1/30/02
• Global Crossing Files For Chapter 11, Internet News 1/28/02
• Global Crossing files for bankruptcy, CNET 1/28/02
• Global Crossing Files For Chapter 11, Internet News 1/28/02
• GC Press Release on Chapter 11 filing, gc 1/28/02
• Global Crossing files for bankruptcy CNET Jan 28, 2002
• Global Crossing Files Chap. 11 Bankruptcy Yahoo Reuters Jan 28, 2002
• Global Crossing Files Bankruptcy, Gets Investment Yahoo Reuters Jan 28, 2002
• Global Crossing files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Ananova Jan 28 2002
• Global Crossing Looks Overseas for Financing, NYT 12/20/01
• Global Crossing bankruptcy fears BBC Dec 14, 2001
• Spotlight: Global Crossing avoids bankruptcy Yahoo Dec 13, 2001
• Global Crossing says it gets waiver from lenders CNET Dec 28, 2001
• Global Crossing falls 34 pct on bankruptcy worry  Forbes Dec 13, 2001