[ih] Fwd: History of Tier 1 Networks

Mon Apr 27 09:53:01 PDT 2026

 Wikipedia  seems to have a pretty good description on the history of PSInet if you are not familiar with them.  I think DARTnet switched to PSI in the middle of the contract for testbed links. I decided to rerun some TG experiments to double check that nothing like throughput had changed. I don't know how accurate the wiki article really is as i wasn't really involved much in this space.
On vacation so behind in email.

barbara
    On Monday, April 27, 2026 at 06:29:40 AM PDT, Bill Woodcock via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  

 I second Tony’s answer.  

None of the PTT-derived large networks got to where they are through entrepreneurship.  They got there through lobbying, protective regulation, protected domestic markets, and exclusive control of access to rights-of-way. And the ability to exploit captive monopoly customer bases to finance growth and anti-competitive action. 

You asked why NTT is global, and it’s because they bought Verio, which was entrepreneurial. 

By far the most organic of the ones on your list is HE. 

Also, be careful with terminology.  You have a list of networks you’re looking at, which could reasonably be called “large international networks derived from PTTs” but probably shouldn’t ba called “Tier 1” since that’s an essentially undefinable marketing term, and shouldn’t be called “default free” unless you look very carefully at their routing and determine whether that actually matters. 

And, yes, ultimately it’s IXPs that matter, not individual competitors in the marketplace.

                -Bill

> On Apr 27, 2026, at 08:29, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ih] History of Tier 1 Networks
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 17:02:48 -0700
> From: Tony Li <tony1athome at gmail.com>
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> CC: James Bensley <lists+internethistory at bensley.me>, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> 
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> [As always, my answers never make it to the list. Apparently I am on the wrong side of a diode.  Please feel free to forward if it moves you.]
> 
> 
>> On Apr 26, 2026, at 4:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> James,
>>> The main question I want to understand is how the current set of Tier 1 networks came to be Tier 1 networks (why these networks and not a different set of networks?).
>> I suspect that the answer will turn out to be the same as for any other industry since the Industrial Revolution: some combination of effective entrepreneurship and pure chance. Did a particular operator (a) understand the strategic value of being a transit provider for no *direct* financial reward and (b) have good enough technical staff and (c) have a bit of luck? Not to mention freedom from political interference.
> 
> 
> The primary driver for this is, as always, economics. You’ll note that these Tier 1 operators are all former PTTs and telcos.  They were positioned well because they had already invested in the primary resource: installed fiber.  When the ISPs blossomed, it became immediately apparent that the networks that had installed fiber (a.k.a., facilities based) had a huge economic advantage: they got bandwidth for the cost of right-of-way, installation, and maintenance.  ISPs that were not facilities based had to go find bandwidth on the open market, and prices reflect not only the costs above, but a hefty markup thanks to the supply/demand skew.
> 
> The other driver, of course, was money.  Telco’s decided to get into the game and immediately started acquiring regional networks, thanks to their deep pockets.
> 
> 
>> But don't neglect the role of IXPs in this. Without them, nothing would work. How and why did they come into existence?
> 
> 
> Again economics. Just as carrier hotels were common in the pre-Internet telco era, ISPs found it more economical to drop a line and a router to an IX than to engineer individual circuits to each of the networks that they wanted to peer with.  As traffic volumes have risen, some of the economics have shifted away from this, and so suitably large peerings have shifted to direct private fiber.  FIX-East and FIX-West were the initial instantiations, which in turn evolved into MAE-East and MAE-West and now to commerical IXPs.  For more on the economics of peering and IXPs and why the IXPs need to be provider independent, I refer you to William Norton’s “The Internet Peering Playbook”.
> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 
> 
>> I hope you succeed, because these are very interesting questions (and they go to the heart of why the Internet succeeded and OSI didn't, IMNSHO).
>> Regards/Ngā mihi
>>  Brian Carpenter
>> On 24-Apr-26 19:47, James Bensley via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> I am wondering if there are people on this list that can help with a more recent part of Internet history. I've been looking into the history of what we today call the Tier 1 networks [1] (global IP carriers).
>>> The main question I want to understand is how the current set of Tier 1 networks came to be Tier 1 networks (why these networks and not a different set of networks?).
>>> To clarify my query; below is the list of Tier 1 networks which I think it could be said are derived from state funded telcos within a certain country:
>>> - AS701 Verizon / UUNET (from the USA via Bell Atlantic)
>>> - AS1299 Telia / Arelion (from Sweden)
>>> - AS2914 NTT (from Japan)
>>> - AS3320 Deutsche Telekom (from Germany)
>>> - AS5511 France Telecom / Orange (from France)
>>> - AS6453 Telstra (from Australia)
>>> - AS6762 Telecom Italia Sparkle (from Italy)
>>> - AS6830 Liberty Global (comprised from the M&A of many European incumbents)
>>> - AS7018 AT&T (from the USA)
>>> - AS12956 Telxius / o2 (from Spain)
>>> I think the following Tier 1s have their roots as being either fully privately funded or only minorly state funded (sometimes indirectly through M&As):
>>> - AS174 Cogent
>>> - AS3257 GTT
>>> - AS3491 PCCW / Console Connect
>>> - AS3356 Lumen / Colt
>>> - AS6461 Zayo
>>> - AS6939 Hurricane Electric
>>> For these network with fully or mostly commercial origins, going on become major global players is nothing out of the ordinary in a capitalistic world, they are "successful". But for the networks which originated as national incumbent telcos, this is the area I am most interested in.
>>> I am told that some expanded into global connectivity due to a desire to provide better connectivity for their home market. What puzzles me is why some of these state funded telcos did this and some didn't.
>>> I'm told that NTT is one such example, which is now one of the biggest global IP carriers (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone wanted to improve connectivity and prices for the Japanese market), whereas SingTel (from Singapore) didn't; their monopoly in Singapore is still very strong today, but they've mainly staid within their “region”. BT (from the UK) is another example. BT didn't go on to become a Tier 1 whereas most of it's Europe neighbours did.
>>> I'm guessing that the peering arrangements that lead to establishment of the Tier 1 tier where solidifying around the early 90's. At this time BT was operating Tymnet which later morphed in BT Global Services. I think they were very welled placed to enter into this realm, but didn't for some reason.
>>> I'd be very grateful if anyone could share some history on why some of these networks which originated from state owned telcos, decided that extensive global connectivity was a priority for them (or why is wasn't), and why they expanded so far out of their original remit (or didn't).
>>> With kind regards,
>>> James.
>>> [1] I'm considering this list of network (I know that other networks existed in the past which no longer exist, so the list is changing over the years, but this is the list I'm looking at right now): https://tier1-analysis.53bits.co.uk/part1/tier1_asns.html#list-of-tier-1-networks
>