Talk:List of tier 1 internet service providers

BSNL

Primus Telecom, Agile/Internode, Comindico

I'm adding Primus Telecom ( primustel.com ) to the list as they appear to fit the criteria for a Tier 1 ISP. (Disclosure: I'm a primustel australia customer).

Edit: Agile/Internode ( http://internode.on.net ), and Comindico ( http://www.comindico.com.au ) as they are considered Tier 1 ISP's in Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.82.46 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

TeliaSonera International Carrier is a Tier1 Network. TeliaSonera International Carrier, not to be mixed with teliasonera that handles End Costumers. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/TeliaSonera_International_Carrier It is a Tier 1 network provider with Autonomous System number AS1299. In 2013 TeliaSonera was the second biggest carrier in the world.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.144.4 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allstream

Allstream is also a Tier-1 ISP. Check out: http://www.allstream.com/about/network/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.82.17.12 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 December 2004 (UTC)

"Tier 1 ISP" is a contentious issue, and possibly a meaningless term in 2005. I am deleting the truly marginal entries from the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdl (talk • contribs) 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up list

Cleaned up list, forgot to post about 2 weeks ago. Let me add that Primus is not a Tier1 even in Australia, but are close enough and will become the 5th as soon as telstra peers with them. The tier1's in AU are: MCI; AAPT/CONNECT; Telstra; SINGTEL Optus. Primus and Agile are in the ranks to be moved up; as well as powertel who has purchased NTT/Verio's customers in AU. Australia is more of a tier 2 base offering services to the people really wanting tier 1. SPT Comindico is hardly tier 1, they dropped connections over SCCN and limit themselves very broadly until they bring things around. Give them a good 4 - 5 years before even considering them tier 1; but they are a carriers carrier or a tier 2. Tier 1 ISP isn't at all meaningless here in 2005; run checks on the routing tables, it still holds very true today. To be considered Tier1 in the US or Canada, you need to own your own network backbone in either owned fiber or have a long term IRU, peer with those currently considered Tier 1 and be able to show enough traffic to support an ISP to actually buy from you (Why else is ATDN considered Tier1, people buy announcements via transit from them). Entire list updated, please note edits in here and save them. Dont go deleting them if you dont like them or believe they arn't Tier 1 without verification, I can back each one of them up with proof via route servers and personal knowledge. --68.57.130.138 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)- J[reply]

Additions or removals from tier 1 isp page

Users should post here for all deletions or additions done to the page, I've checked each provider against route servers and verified global tier 1 status. Some are just common sense, yet were verified eitherway. Removals of ISP's because you have never heard of them or you think they are not tier 1, shouldn't be done without clear verification and proof to show that you have proven they are or are not tier 1. --68.57.130.138 23:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I've protected this page until you've all sorted out what should and shouldn't be on the list.

Please could all editors sign their entries so that its possible for others to work out who is saying what? This is done by appending ~~~~ to the end of your comment. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I noticed this article because of a comment someone left on your talk page... Thought I'd comment because this topic is covered by my professional expertise. The standing list is completely wrongheaded but resolving this dispute might be difficult because many providers' marketing departments will incorrectly represent themselves as tier-1 networks against the conventional definition (which, in short, is a network which doesn't pay for transit) because many customers incorrectly believe that it is advantageous to connect to tier-1 networks (it isn't, unless you are heavily multi-homed).

The conventional definition isn't really set in stone, as it is not always a useful metric and it is terribly hard to measure accurately, so people often redefine it to match what they want to know, what they can measure, or what they want others to think. In my professional opinion (although not speaking for my employer): This list is completely someplace between completely useless and somewhat useless depending on how we define tier-1, that the list is between difficult and impossible to make NPOV depending on how we define tier-1, and that the more useful versions tend to be the hopelessly POV ones. Finally, no matter how you define Tier-1, the list would be quite difficult to verify, the best we could do is say "X says Y is Tier-1" because of the above. As a result, unless discussion here convinces me otherwise I'm going to AFD this list in a few days... We should replace it with a list of autonomous systems sorted by number of distinct AS adjacencies. This metric gives a more useful view of a networks global connectivity, is easily defined and verifiable, and as such is not subject to bad information being generated by marketing departments. --Gmaxwell 02:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment doesn't surprise me. I've yet to see a definition of Tier 1 that makes any sense to me. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected, based on the reasoning that some radical edits may improve this article. If not, it may be considered as a deletion candidate on the grounds advanced by Gmaxwell. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cogent

An anonymous editor added Cogent to the list, probably due to the controversy surrounding a de-peering between Level (3) and Cogent today. As I don't have enough information to determine whether it belongs here or not, I'm leaving it listed and adding {{POV}}. Feel free to remove Cogent if I didn't do the right thing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Baricom 07:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

apparently cognet do buy transit to some networks though i don't have information off hand on which ones. so that would make them not a tier 1 Plugwash 01:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Telecom?

This list seems very US centric. What about British Telecom for instance? Since they have had until recently an effective monopoly over the UK infrastructure...

the US is tier 1 of the internet! if your isp cannot route packets locally they send them to thier upstream in the USA. Plugwash 19:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's US centric because THAT'S WHERE THE FREAKING SERVERS ARE LOCATED?! →Raul654 01:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't solely located their obviously, so no Raul you idiot. No country is "tier 1" of the Internet, packets not routed locally are not sent to servers in the UK, USA or anywhere else from another side of the globe, Plugwash. 82.1.73.23 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, it isn't about where you're based or how big your marketing department is, Tier1 simply means doesn't buy transit i.e. is connected by settlement-free peering to the rest of the Internet in its entirety (for reasonanble definition of entirety at any given moment.) The few companies who are Tier1 rely on the rest of the Internet to pay to get to them, so you can see why any large ISP would want to claim this status. (unsigned comment by 212.42.15.34)

Yes, and to connect directly to those other Tier 1 ISPs, you to have a physical presence at many/most Network access points, all (or virtually all) of which are in the US. →Raul654 02:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Raul...those are the four points of the early US national network. Those are not required for a Tier 1 network of the global Internet. You didn't invent it, just try and get over it. 82.1.73.23 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes and afaict to get the rest of the internet to pay to get to you requires being based in the USA (links within the usa are afaict relatively cheap compared to transatlantic ones). Its hard enough to become a tier 1 with a presence in the USA its going to be basically impossible without unless the USA is somehow wiped off the internet map. Plugwash 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"the US is tier 1 of the internet! if your isp cannot route packets locally they send them to their upstream in the USA. " LOL. No it isn't. The largest global peering point used to be London, but is now Amsterdam. Nothing normally routes via the USA unless it needs to.194.176.222.227 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

right

The pile of edits without justification is getting unmanageable. I've gone back to the latest revision that actually had a relavent comment on what was being done to the list and made some small edits to the text below the list, i will be mercilessly reverting any edits to the list that do not provide justification for the actual changes (and no insulting other editors is not justifying your edits). Sorry to have to do it this way but there doesn't seem any other way to keep this list sane Plugwash 02:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some would argue that the definition of a Tier 1 is on a per location basis not globally, in that case BT would pass this test as they don't pay for any transit to get to locations within the UK.

Also a lot of these 'Tier 1' ISPs are now having to pay eyeball networks and CDN's for paid peering NOT transit.

The term Tier 1 cannot really be defined any more as there are always deals that people just don't know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.21.19.21 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aol

Aol has been on and off the list quite a bit recently, can anyone confirm/deny if they buy service from any other isp or not? Plugwash 02:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Determining Tier 1 Status

Some of this is just information which you are never going to be able to offically verify, due to Non-Disclosure Agreements surrounding peering at the Tier 1 level. At a certain point (if you want this list to be accurate at any rate) people who do not know who is a Tier 1 and who isn't are just going to have to accept the information provided by those who do have detailed understanding of the settlement currently in use in this industry.

If you have a question about a specific network, ask, and I'm certain that someone who understands these relationships will be able to point out how a network does or does not qualify. Just to throw out some answers to some of the questions posed here already:

ATDN: 100% settlement free. I understand that some question has been raised about the "other business" AOL does with Level 3 in the form of outsourced dial. These kinds of deals involving the exchange of business external to the IP in question are certainly a factor in a great many complex peering relationships, but in this particular case I think it passes the test because ATDN does not pay Level 3 settlement for its IP directly, and the outsourced dial business is a stand-alone contract which is not used to justify or pay for peering.
Cogent: Buys transit from Verio to reach networks who will not peer with it, such as ATDN and Sprint.
British Telecom: Buys from Sprint.
Everything else listed: not even up for consideration, all very obviously buy transit.

Humble226

"In the public Internet, acces networks situationed at the edge of the Internet are connected to the rest of the Internet through a tiered hierarchy of Internet Services providers (ISPs)... At the very top of this hierarchy is a relatively small number of so-called Tier-1 ISPs. In many ways, a Tier-1 ISP is the same as any network - it has links and routers and is connected to other networks. In other ways, however, tier-1 ISPs are special. Their link speeds are often 622 Mbps or higher, with the larger tier-1 ISPs having links in the 2.5-10 Gbps range; their routers must consequently forward packets at extremely high rates. Tier 1 ISPs are also characterized by being:

Directly connected to each of the other tier-1 ISPs
Connected to a large number of tier-2 ISPs and other customer networks
International in coverage.

Tier 1 ISPs are also known as Internet backbone networks. As of this writing, UUNet (a subsidiary of WorldCom) is the largest Tier 1 ISP; other major backbones companies include Sprint, AT&T, Genuity, and Cable and Wireless" -

--James Kurose, Computer Network - A Top Down Approach Featuring the Internet, pg 39) [This is by far the most popular undergrad computer networking textbook] →Raul654 02:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link speed is a fading metric, what was an "absurdly fast" link that only Tier 1's had 5 years ago are almost commonplace today. You won't find any Tier 1's running backbone circuits at less than multiple-OC192 (10G) these days. The only item of consideration for "Tier 1" status is the amount and type of peering, namely the "directly connected to all other tier-1's via settlement free peering". Anything else is gravy, common characteristics but not defining characteristics.

BTW based on the metrics most likely being used in that book (number of customer routes or percentage of the Internet that is a customer), Level 3 passed UUNet a while back. Of course in modern history, Cable and Wireless was sold to SAVVIS (the part of Cable and Wireless that was a Tier 1, Cable and Wireless America, AS3561, not AS1273 aka Cable and Wireless Plc), Genuity was bought by Level 3, AT&T is currently being bought by SBC, etc. Humble226

Humble thanks for stating your reasoning but its still unsourced, anyone can make assertions like that true or otherwise without sources it doesn't mean a great deal. Plugwash 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this comment in another section of the this discussion page originally, but it's more appropriate right here... Dayv 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof you could offer would be POV and would probably violate Wikipedia:No original research as well. No matter what anyone says to the contrary, "Tier 1" is *only* a colloquial marketing term, not conclusively defined by any authority. There is no RFC, ANSI standard, or other indisputable document from which you can extract an ironclad proof of what networks are or aren't "Tier 1." This list should either be changed to "networks commonly considered Tier 1" or (my preference) deleted. The only reason I'm not adding this list to AfD myself is that I am employed by a Tier 1 provider (not saying which one) and thus feel a bit less than objective doing so. Dayv 21:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Centric

I think this term is very misleading. The list is based on "networks that don't pay a fee to peer with US networks". But the fact is there are more IPX in other countries than in the US, and lots of backbones are tier 1 in other countries or even whole continents. If they pay a US tier 1 network to peer on 1 US IPX but use IPXs in other countries and don't pay anyone there, it should be tier 1. Elfguy 14:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list, and "Tier 1" status in general, has nothing to do with the US or any other geopolitical boundries. The concept of "tier 1 within a certain geographic region" is a recent fabrication which is sometimes used to explain the way a particular carrier sees itself, and thus explain some of their attitudes and actions it takes when interacting with other networks. A true Tier 1 is settlement free across the entire Internet. Also, every network on the list operates a significant global network outside of the US. 66.235.41.152

In fact three of the nine companies currently listed either are or were not-US anyway (NTT is Japanese, C&W was British and Global Crossing is owned by Singapore Telecom.)

Regarding your point on "regional Tier1" status, there is an interesting article on this at Group of Four (Australia) but I don't think geography should come in to it at all. 212.42.15.34 11:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Tier 1 carrier

Merging this list into Tier 1 carrier. Don't know if we should merge the talk pages too, or just continue the discussion over there.... Jamie 01:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge complete. Jamie 01:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many more tier 1 providers in my opinion

If I can throw in my 2 cents here, I'm quite convinced that there are more than 9 tier 1 providers. As mentioned below, the problem is that the term tier 1 and tier 2 have not been defined. I know I learned about the terms from a geek admin and I've never seen it written down. So now we're trying to write it down and everyone's definition is going to be slightly different. Here's my proposal - when a certain percentage of the world's internet traffic is on your network then you qualify as a "tier 1." As to what that percentage is, I suggest 1%. However, I don't know how your going to determine who has what percent of the worlds internet traffic. Originally I thought that a tier 1 provider was the one who owns the fiber in the ground. But that simply doesn't work because the fiber is really only owned by handful of companies (who have nothing to do with bandwidth) and then hundreds of companies lease the fiber including the 9 already defined tier 1 providers. To me, the perfect example of a tier 2 is www.internap.com who boast about buying OC12's from various "tier 1" providers in each city and they they ping who has the fastest routes in any given hour and route that way. Then they sell their bandwidth to ISPs who otherwise couldn't afford to build that network. And originally, they were a tier 2 but I feel like they are moving enough traffic these days that they have graduated to being a tier 1. So again, I feel that its the amount of traffic moving on the network that defines a tier 1 from a tier 2. Here's my list of networks that in my mind are tier 1 providers. Sorry, I'm in USA so I'm sure I'm leaving out networks outside the US. Abovenet
AT&T
Broadwing Communications
Cogent
Grande Communications
ICG Communications
Level(3)/Global Crossing
Looking Glass Networks
MCI
McLeodUSA
OnFiber Communications
Qwest
Savvis
SBC
Sprint
Telmex
Time Warner Telecom
UUNET
Verizon
WilTel Communications
XO
Zayo Group
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.208.100 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC) TeliaSonera International Carrier[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.144.4 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other indicator is what sysadmins use to check the internet - this is the tool I'm familiar with: http://www.internetpulse.net/ This tool tells the pings between the largest networks, and in my mind those are definately tier 1 providers.

I think that it's also important that you stress in the article that from a consumer's stand point, a tier 1 is not better than a tier 2 or vice versa. In fact, if your dealing with a tier 1 company, unless your a million dollar per year customer, your dealing with their version of a tier 2 administrator. I think the best anology is shipping. A tier 1 provider is like a giant shipping company. A tier 2 is like a mail company. When you ship a package it goes to the mailing company who then wraps it, assigns a tracking number and sends it to the shipping company. They load it into the hold on a giant cargo ship with millions of other packaes and deliver it to another mailing company (tier 2) who then delivers it to the consumer. When the package is lost, you contact the guy with the tracking number, not the captain of the ship.

Disclosure - I'm in telecom sales for http://www.aspentx.com - defintaly a tier 2 provider

65.192.132.140 16:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Globally there is only like 6 Tier1 ISP's. The simple and CORRECT definition of this is if an ISP buys TRANSIT they are not a Tier1 provider. The only Tier1 providers are that of which peer with the whole world. When you are talking to a national level, then the same principle applies but buys transit to access out of the country.