Tier 1 network

Top level network on the internet

A Tier 1 network is an Internet Protocol (IP) network that can reach every other network on the Internet solely via settlement-free interconnection (also known as settlement-free peering).[1][2] In other words, tier 1 networks can exchange traffic with other Tier 1 networks without paying any fees for the exchange of traffic in either direction.[3] In contrast, some Tier 2 networks and all Tier 3 networks must pay to transmit traffic on other networks.[3]

Classic (hierarchical) relationship between the various tiers of Internet providers before the advent of large content providers and CDNs

There is no authority that defines tiers of networks participating in the Internet.[1] The most common and well-accepted definition of a Tier 1 network is a network that can reach every other network on the Internet without purchasing IP transit or paying for peering.[2] By this definition, a Tier 1 network must be a transit-free network (purchases no transit) that peers for no charge with every other Tier 1 network[4][5] and can reach all major networks on the Internet. Not all transit-free networks are Tier 1 networks, as it is possible to become transit-free by paying for peering, and it is also possible to be transit-free without being able to reach all major networks on the Internet.

The most widely quoted source for identifying Tier 1 networks is published by Renesys Corporation, but the base information to prove the claim is publicly accessible from many locations, such as the RIPE RIS database,[6] the Oregon Route Views servers, Packet Clearing House, and others.

It can be difficult to determine whether a network is paying for peering or transit, as these business agreements are rarely public information, or are covered under a non-disclosure agreement. The Internet peering community is roughly the set of peering coordinators present at the Internet exchange points on more than one continent. The subset representing Tier 1 networks is collectively understood in a loose sense, but not published as such.

Common definitions of Tier 2 and Tier 3 networks:

* Tier 2 network: A network that peers for no charge with some networks, but still purchases IP transit or pays for peering to reach at least some portion of the Internet.
* Tier 3 network: A network that solely purchases transit/peering from other networks to participate in the Internet.

Since approximately 2010, this hierarchical organization of Internet relationships has evolved. Large content providers with private networks and CDNs, like Google, Netflix, and Meta, have greatly reduced the role of Tier 1 ISPs and flattened the internet topology since the content providers interconnect directly with most other ISPs, bypassing Tier 1 transit providers.

## History

[edit]

The original Internet backbone was the ARPANET when it provided the routing between most participating networks. The development of the British JANET (1984) and U.S. NSFNET (1985) infrastructure programs to serve their nations' higher education communities, regardless of discipline,[7] resulted in the NSFNet backbone by 1989. The Internet could be defined as the collection of all networks connected and able to interchange Internet Protocol datagrams with this backbone. Such was the weight of the NSFNET program and its funding ($200 million from 1986 to 1995)—and the quality of the protocols themselves—that by 1990, when the ARPANET itself was finally decommissioned, TCP/IP had supplanted or marginalized most other wide-area computer network protocols worldwide.

When the Internet was opened to the commercial markets, multiple for-profit Internet backbone and access providers emerged. The network routing architecture then became decentralized and this meant a need for exterior routing protocols: in particular, the Border Gateway Protocol emerged. New Tier 1 ISPs and their peering agreements supplanted the government-sponsored NSFNet, that program being officially terminated on April 30, 1995.[7] The NSFnet-supplied regional networks then sought to buy national-scale Internet connectivity from these now-numerous private long-haul networks.

## Routing through peering

[edit]

A bilateral private peering agreement typically involves a direct physical link between two partners. Traffic from one network to the other is then primarily routed through that direct link.

A Tier 1 network may have various such links to other Tier 1 networks.[8][9][10] Peering is founded on the principle of equality of traffic between the partners and as such disagreements may arise between partners in which usually one of the partners unilaterally disconnects the link in order to force the other into a payment scheme. Such disruptive de-peering has happened several times during the first decade of the 21st century. When this involves large-scale networks involving many millions of customers this may effectively partition a part of the Internet involving those carriers, especially if they decide to disallow routing through alternate routes. This is not largely a technical issue but a commercial matter in which a financial dispute is fought out using the other party's customers as hostages to obtain a better negotiating position. In the worst case, single-homed customers of each network will not be able to reach the other network at all. The de-peering party then hopes that the other network's customers will be hurt more by the decision than its own customers which may eventually conclude the negotiations in its favor.[11][12] Lower tier ISPs and other parties not involved in the dispute may be unaffected by such a partition as there exist typically multiple routes onto the same network. The disputes referenced have also typically involved transit-free peering in which one player only exchanged data with the other that involved each other's networks—there was no data transiting through the other's network destined for other parts of the Internet. By the strict definition of peering and the strict definition of a Tier 1 network, a Tier 1 network only peers with other Tier 1 networks and has no transit routes going anywhere. More practically speaking, Tier 1 networks serve as transit networks for lower tier networks and only peer with other Tier 1 networks that offer the same services on an adequate scale—effectively being "peers" in the truest sense of the word.[13]

More appropriately then, peering means the exchange of an equitable and fair amount of data-miles between two networks, agreements of which do not preclude any pay-for-transit contracts to exist between the very same parties. On the subject of routing, settlement-free peering involves conditions disallowing the abuse of the other's network by sending it traffic not destined for that network (i.e. intended for transit). Transit agreements however would typically cater for just such outbound packets. Tier 1 providers are more central to the Internet backbone and would only purchase transit from other Tier 1 providers, while selling transit to providers of all tiers. Given their huge networks, Tier 1 providers often do not participate in public Internet Exchanges[14] but rather sell transit services to such participants and engage in private peering.[15] Colocation centers often host private peering connections between their customers, internet transit (tier 1) providers and cloud providers.[16][17]

In the most logical definition, a Tier 1 provider will never pay for transit because the set of all Tier 1 providers sells transit to all of the lower tier providers everywhere, and because

1. all Tier 1 providers peer with every other Tier 1 provider globally and,
2. the peering agreement allows access to all of the transit customers, this means that
3. the Tier 1 network contains all hosts everywhere that are connected to the global Internet.

As such, by the peering agreement, all the customers of any Tier 1 provider already have access to all the customers of all the other Tier 1 providers without the Tier 1 provider itself having to pay transit costs to the other networks. Effectively, the actual transit costs incurred by provider A on behalf of provider B are logically identical to the transit costs incurred by provider B on behalf of provider A—hence there not being any payment required.

## The Rise of Hyperscale Networks and CDNs

[edit]

The traditional tiered hierarchy of the internet was challenged by the emergence of hyperscaler content and cloud providers. These providers have become major sources of global internet traffic, and in response, have built their own global network infrastructure that operates in parallel to, and in many cases bypasses, the traditional Tier 1 backbones.[18]

A few hyperscale companies—specifically Google (Youtube, Cloud), Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Amazon (AWS, Prime Video), Microsoft (Azure, Xbox), and Netflix—are the dominant source of this traffic, accounting for nearly 75% of all used international bandwidth as of 2024.[19] This marks a significant shift from the earlier internet, where traffic sources were more diffuse. The concentration of traffic provided an economic incentive to build their own infrastructure. When the majority of an end-user's traffic is destined for only a handful of networks, the value of a single, paid transit connection to the "entire internet" diminishes for an access ISP. It becomes more efficient for that ISP to peer directly with the major traffic sources, a dynamic that reduces the value of the core transit product offered by Tier 1s and fuels the rise of direct interconnection and on-net content caching.[20]

In response to their traffic generation, hyperscalers have made substantial investments in building their own private global backbones, which in scale and sophistication can rival or exceed those of traditional Tier 1 ISPs.[21] This infrastructure has several key components:

* Global Data Centers and Cloud Regions: AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform operate hundreds of data centers organized into dozens of geographically distinct "cloud regions" and "availability zones" around the world.[22][23][24] These facilities form the core hubs of their networks.
* Private Fiber Backbones: These global data centers are interconnected by extensive, private fiber-optic networks. Traffic between regions on these backbones—for example, between two VPCs in an inter-region VPC peering connection—is encrypted and remains on the provider's private network, without traversing the public internet.[25][26]
* Submarine Cable Investment: Historically, network builders would lease capacity on submarine communications cables owned by telecom consortia or Tier 1 providers. Today, content providers are the primary investors in new submarine cable construction, funding over $11 billion in new cables expected to enter service between 2023 and 2025.[27] Specifically, Google is believed to operate the world's largest global backbone today, with at least 31 submarine cables,[28] most of which are privately owned. This shift from being the largest customers of capacity to the largest owners gives them control over their own supply and costs.[29] This change in ownership economics has altered the traditional customer-supplier relationship, as hyperscalers now possess surplus fiber pairs on their cables that they can, in turn, sell or trade with other networks, including the Tier 1s from whom they once leased.

To deliver content to end-users with lower latency and cost, hyperscalers employ two primary strategies to bypass the traditional transit model and move their services closer to the network edge.

1. Extensive Peering: As outlined previously, hyperscalers pursue an open peering policy, establishing connections at IXPs and through private network interconnects (PNIs).[30][31] This strategy is a response to the cost of IP transit bandwidth, which can differ significantly between regions.[32][33] By peering directly with access ISPs, a hyperscaler offloads traffic that would otherwise have gone to a transit provider, improving performance and reducing operational expenditures.[34]
2. On-Net Caching: Another strategy involves the content provider placing physical servers—caches—directly inside an access network's data centers. This localizes traffic, ensuring that popular content can be served to users without it needing to cross an external network boundary. The two most prominent examples are:
* Netflix Open Connect (OCA): Netflix provides consumer ISPs that meet certain traffic thresholds with Open Connect Appliances (OCAs) at no charge.[35] These are high-capacity storage servers that Netflix ships to the ISP. The ISP provides rack space, power, and a BGP session to the OCAs.[36] During off-peak hours, Netflix populates the caches with its most popular regional content. When a subscriber in that ISP's network plays a video, the stream is served directly from the local OCA inside their own provider's network, significantly reducing the ISP's need to pull traffic from upstream transit links and improving the viewing experience.[37]
* Google Global Cache (GGC): Google operates a similar program for its high-bandwidth content, primarily YouTube and GCP. Google provides free GGC hardware to qualifying ISPs, who install the nodes in their network.[38] The ISP establishes a BGP session with the GGC node and announces the IP address prefixes of its users.[39] Google's traffic management systems then use this information, along with user DNS queries, to redirect users to the local GGC node for popular content. This keeps traffic local, reduces the ISP's operational costs, and lowers latency for users.[40]

The structural changes to internet traffic flows have prompted a re-evaluation of the role and definition of Tier 1 networks. While the classic model is not obsolete, its dominance has been reduced, and its business focus has shifted to enterprises in response to the rise of hyperscale backbones.

## Hyperscaler vs Tier 1 networks

[edit]

A common discussion in network engineering circles is whether hyperscale networks like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft should now be considered Tier 1. In terms of physical infrastructure—global fiber backbones, submarine cable ownership, and points of presence—their networks are on par with, or in the case of Google greatly exceed, those of traditional Tier 1s. They are also largely "transit-free," meaning they do not purchase significant amounts of transit to reach destinations.

However, they do not fit the functional definition of a Tier 1 network because their primary purpose is not to sell universal IP transit to third parties. Their networks are built to serve their own applications, and their extensive peering is a distribution strategy designed to optimize that delivery.

Thus, instead of replacing Tier 1s, the hyperscalers have created a distinct, parallel category of internet backbone. The modern internet core is less of a strict hierarchy with Tier 1s at the apex, and more of a complex ecosystem where two types of large-scale global backbones (Tier 1 and Hyperscale) interconnect with each other and with thousands of smaller networks below them.

## List of Tier 1 networks

[edit]

These networks are universally recognized as Tier 1 networks, because they can reach the entire internet (IPv4 and IPv6) via settlement-free peering. The CAIDA AS rank is a rank of importance on the internet.[41]

Name  | Headquarters  | AS number | CAIDA AS rank[41] | Fiber route (km)  | Peering policy

|
|
|
|
|

AT&T[42] |  United States | 7018  | 29  | 660,000[43] | AT&T Peering policy
Deutsche Telekom Global Carrier[44] |  Germany | 3320  | 17  | 250,000[45] | DTAG Peering Details
GTT Communications |  United States | 3257  | 4  | 232,934[46][47] | GTT Peering Policy
Liberty Global[48][49] |  Netherlands[50] | 6830  | 26  | 800,000[51] | Peering Principles
Lumen Technologies (formerly CenturyLink, formerly Level 3)[52][53][54] |  United States | 3356  | 1  | 885,139[55][56] | Lumen Peering Policy
NTT Communications (formerly Verio)[57] |  Japan | 2914  | 5  | ?  | Global Peering Policy
Orange[58] |  France | 5511  | 11  | 495,000 [59] | OTI peering policy
PCCW Global |  Hong Kong | 3491  | 10  | ?  | Peering policy
Tata Communications (prev. VSNL prev. Teleglobe)[60] |  India | 6453  | 6  | 700,000[61] | Peering Policy
Telecom Italia Sparkle (Seabone)[62] |  Italy | 6762  | 8  | 560,000  | Peering Policy
Arelion (formerly Telia Carrier)[63] |  Sweden | 1299  | 2  | 70,000[64] | Arelion's IP Network Peering Policy
Telxius (Subsidiary of Telefónica)[65] |  Spain | 12956  | 15  | 65,000[66] | Peering Policy
Verizon Enterprise Solutions (formerly UUNET)[71] |  United States | 701  | 25  | 805,000[72] | Verizon UUNET Peering policy 701, 702, 703
Zayo Group (formerly AboveNet)[73] |  United States | 6461  | 9  | 196,339[74] | Zayo Peering Policy

While most of these Tier 1 providers offer global coverage (based on the published network map on their respective public websites), there are some which are restricted geographically. However these do offer global coverage for mobiles and IP-VPN type services which are unrelated to being a Tier 1 provider.

A 2008 report shows Internet traffic relying less on U.S. networks than previously.[75]

## Regional Tier 1 networks

[edit]

See also: Internet exchange point

A common point of contention regarding Tier 1 networks is the concept of a regional Tier 1 network. A regional Tier 1 network is a network which is not transit-free globally, but which maintains many of the classic behaviors and motivations of a Tier 1 network within a specific region.

A typical scenario for this characteristic involves a network that was the incumbent telecommunications company in a specific country or region, usually tied to some level of government-supported monopoly. Within their specific countries or regions of origin, these networks maintain peering policies which mimic those of Tier 1 networks (such as lack of openness to new peering relationships and having existing peering with every other major network in that region). However, this network may then extend to another country, region, or continent outside of its core region of operations, where it may purchase transit or peer openly like a Tier 2 network.

A commonly cited example of these behaviors involves the incumbent carriers within Australia, who will not peer with new networks in Australia under any circumstances, but who will extend their networks to the United States and peer openly with many networks.[citation needed] Less extreme examples of much less restrictive peering requirements being set for regions in which a network peers, but does not sell services or have a significant market share, are relatively common among many networks, not just regional Tier 1 networks.

While the classification regional Tier 1 holds some merit for understanding the peering motivations of such a network within different regions, these networks do not meet the requirements of a true global Tier 1 because they are not transit-free globally.[76]

## Other major networks

[edit]

This is a list of networks that are often considered and close to the status of Tier 1, because they can reach the majority (50+%) of the internet via settlement-free peering with their global rings. However, routes to one or more Tier 1 are missing or paid. Therefore, they are technically Tier 2, though practically something in between.

Name  | Headquarters  | AS Number | CAIDA AS Rank[41] | Reason

|
|
|
|

China Telecom |  China | 4134/4809  | 87  | Purchases transit from Lumen/AS3356, Cogent/AS174, Verizon/AS701.
China Unicom |  China | 4837  | 181  | Purchases transit from Cogent/AS174, Verizon/AS701, Lumen/AS3356, Orange/AS5511.
Singtel[77] |  Singapore | 7473  | 16  | Purchases transit from Arelion/AS1299, Zayo/AS6461, Tata Communications/AS6453.
Cogent Communications (formerly PSINet)[78] |  United States | 174  | 3  | No IPv6 routes to Hurricane Electric/AS6939
Hurricane Electric[79] |  United States | 6939  | 5  | IPv4: Purchases transit from Arelion/AS1299 to reach GTT/AS3257, NTT/AS2914 and Cogent/AS174.
IPv6: Lack of peering with Cogent/AS174.[80][81]
RETN[82] |  United Kingdom | 9002  | 12  | Purchases transit from Lumen/AS3356 to reach Cogent/AS174 and NTT/AS2914.
Vodafone Carrier Services
(formerly Cable & Wireless)[83] |  United Kingdom | 1273  | 13  | Purchases transit from Arelion/AS1299 to reach AT&T/AS7018.[84]
Verizon Enterprise Solutions
(formerly XO Communications)[85][86] |  United States | 2828  | 220  | IPv6: Purchases transit from Cogent Communications/AS1239 to reach Vodafone (CW)/AS1273 and Telecom Italia Sparkle (Seabone)/AS6763.
Telstra[87] |  Australia | 4637  | 14  | Purchases transit from Lumen/AS3356, Arelion/AS1299, Zayo/AS6461.
Comcast[88] |  United States | 7922  | 29  | Purchases transit from Tata/AS6453

## See also

[edit]

* Optical Carrier transmission rates
* Interconnect agreement
* Internet exchange point
* List of Internet exchange points

## References

[edit]

1. ^ a b Winther, Mark (May 2006). "Tier1 ISPs: What They Are and Why They Are Important" (PDF). NTT America Corporate. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-08-03.
2. ^ a b "How the 'Net works: an introduction to peering and transit: Page 4". 2008-09-02. Retrieved 2008-11-04. "Tier 1 networks are those networks that don't pay any other network for transit yet still can reach all networks connected to the internet."
3. ^ a b "Definition of: Tier 1 network". pcmag.com. Retrieved 2018-08-10.
4. ^ Hundley, Kent (31 August 2009). Alcatel-Lucent Scalable IP Networks Self-Study Guide: Preparing for the Network Routing Specialist I (NRS 1) Certification Exam. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-52938-6.
5. ^ Norton, William B. (8 August 2011). The Internet Peering Playbook: Connecting to the Core of the Internet. DrPeering Press. ISBN 978-1-937451-02-8.
6. ^ RIPE RIS database
7. ^ a b "Brief History of the Internet". Internet Society. Retrieved 2019-01-22.
8. ^ Network Routing: Algorithms, Protocols, and Architectures. Elsevier. 19 July 2010. ISBN 978-0-08-047497-7.
9. ^ Hundley, Kent (31 August 2009). Alcatel-Lucent Scalable IP Networks Self-Study Guide: Preparing for the Network Routing Specialist I (NRS 1) Certification Exam. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-52938-6.
10. ^ Norton, William B. (8 August 2011). The Internet Peering Playbook: Connecting to the Core of the Internet. DrPeering Press. ISBN 978-1-937451-02-8.
11. ^ "You can't get there from here". Renesys. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2014-05-11. "Cogent and Telia are having a lover's quarrel and, as a result, the Internet is partitioned. That means customers of Cogent and Telia cannot necessarily reach one another."
12. ^ "'Peering' Into AOL-MSN Outage". 2003-09-05. Retrieved 2014-05-11. "Some industry watchers believe the problem shows signs of dispute over peering agreements—deals between Internet service providers to create a direct link to route each other's packets rather than pay a third-party network service provider for transport."
13. ^ "Level 3 IP traffic exchange policy". Retrieved 2014-05-11. "Must provide paid Internet transit services to at least 500 unique transit networks utilizing BGP on a global basis."
14. ^ Network Routing: Algorithms, Protocols, and Architectures. Elsevier. 19 July 2010. ISBN 978-0-08-047497-7.
15. ^ Global Networks: Engineering, Operations and Design. John Wiley & Sons. 5 November 2012. ISBN 978-1-118-39457-1.
16. ^ "Touring the PhoenixNAP Data Center". www.servethehome.com.
17. ^ "The rise and rebirth of carrier hotels". www.datacenterdynamics.com.
18. ^ "State of the Network 2024" (PDF). TeleGeography. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
19. ^ "Used International Bandwidth Reaches New Heights". TeleGeography. 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
20. ^ "CDN-as-a-Service: a new business model for the future Internet" (PDF). EURECOM. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
21. ^ "Global Tier-1 GTT Enhances Visibility, Security, and Profit with Kentik". Kentik. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
22. ^ "AWS Global Infrastructure". Amazon Web Services. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
23. ^ "Azure global network". Microsoft Azure. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
24. ^ "Google Infrastructure Overview". Google. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
25. ^ "What is VPC peering?". AWS Documentation. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
26. ^ "Azure Virtual Network peering". Microsoft Learn. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
27. ^ "Building Tomorrow's Internet: An Update on New Cable Investment". TeleGeography. 2025-01-28. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
28. ^ "Complete List of Google's Subsea Cable Investments - Submarine Networks". www.submarinenetworks.com. Retrieved 2025-07-01.
29. ^ "The Key Trends Shaping Long-Haul Capacity Demand". TeleGeography. 2024-03-12. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
30. ^ "Peering and Interconnection". Amazon Web Services. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
31. ^ "Cloudflare Peering Portal". Cloudflare. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
32. ^ "The Relative Cost of Bandwidth Around the World (2014)" (PDF). Cloudflare. 2014-07-10. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
33. ^ "Bandwidth Costs Around the World (2016)". Cloudflare. 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
34. ^ "CDN Peering and IPv6" (PDF). Akamai. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
35. ^ "Netflix Open Connect". Netflix. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
36. ^ "Welcome to Open Connect". Netflix. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
37. ^ "Netflix, FreeBSD, and a Thousand-Gigabit NIC" (PDF). FreeBSD Foundation. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
38. ^ "Introduction to GGC". Google Help. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
39. ^ "GGC Installation Guide". Google. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
40. ^ "Supported BGP communities". Google Support. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
41. ^ a b c CAIDA AS Rank
42. ^ "AS Rank: AS7018 (AT&T Services, Inc.)". Retrieved 2022-08-08.
43. ^ "AT&T Communications Inc".
44. ^ "AS Rank: AS3320 (Deutsche Telekom AG)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
45. ^ "Internet and Contents". 6 January 2025.
46. ^ "Investor Presentation" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-12-01. Retrieved 2017-11-18.
47. ^ "GTT Buys Interoute for $2.3 Billion to Gain Europe Fiber Network". BloombergQuint. 26 February 2018. Retrieved 2019-02-05.
48. ^ "AS6830 IPv4 route propagation". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
49. ^ "CAIDA AS Rank". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
50. ^ "Contact".
51. ^ "Liberty Global | largest international cable company". www.libertyglobal.com. Archived from the original on 2017-08-09. Retrieved 15 August 2017.
52. ^ "CenturyLink completes acquisition of Level 3". MediaRoom. Retrieved 2019-01-22.
53. ^ "CAIDA AS Rank". 2016-09-01. Retrieved 2016-09-01.
54. ^ "CenturyLink Transforms, Rebrands as Lumen®". ir.lumen.com. Retrieved 2020-10-21.
55. ^ CenturyLink, Inc. "CenturyLink completes largest deployment of G.fast technology in North America". www.prnewswire.com (Press release). Retrieved 2019-01-22.
56. ^ "Level 3® Internet Services" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-10-20. Retrieved 2016-09-06.
57. ^ "CAIDA AS Rank". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
58. ^ "AS Rank: AS5511 (Orange S.A.)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
59. ^ "450 000 km of submarine cables + 45 000 km terrestrial networks".
60. ^ "AS Rank: AS6453 (TATA COMMUNICATIONS (AMERICA) INC)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
61. ^ "Tata Communications | Digital Ecosystem Enabler".
62. ^ "AS Rank: AS6762 (Telecom Italia S.p.A.)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
63. ^ "AS Rank: AS1299 (Telia Company AB)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
64. ^ "Arelion". Arelion. Retrieved 2022-10-31.
65. ^ "AS Rank: AS12956 (Telefonica International Wholesale Services II, S.L.U.)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
66. ^ "Capacity Services" (PDF). telxius.com. Telxius. Retrieved 2024-08-11.
67. ^ a b "After delay, Verizon wraps $1.8B XO acquisition, deepening metro fiber density in 45 markets". February 2017.
68. ^ a b "AS Rank: AS701 (MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
69. ^ a b "AS Rank: AS702 (MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
70. ^ a b "AS Rank: AS703 (MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
71. ^ [67][68][69][70]
72. ^ "When you need quality, reliability and a global presence, trust Verizon Partner Solutions for all of your VOICE SERVICES requirements". www22.verizon.com. Retrieved 2019-01-22.
73. ^ "AS Rank: AS6461 (Zayo Bandwidth)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
74. ^ "Network Solutions Provider - Dark Fiber Network". Zayo Group. Retrieved 2019-01-22.
75. ^ Markoff, John (2008-08-30). "Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the US". New York Times.
76. ^ "Who are the Tier 1 ISPs?". drpeering.net. Retrieved 2019-05-22.
77. ^ "AS Rank: AS7473 (Singapore Telecommunications (SINGTEL Internet Exchange))". Retrieved 2022-02-10.
78. ^ "AS Rank: AS174 (Cogent Communications)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
79. ^ "AS Rank: AS6939 (Hurricane Electric LLC)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
80. ^ "Peering Disputes Migrate to IPv6". 22 October 2009.
81. ^ "IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering". 12 October 2009.
82. ^ "AS Rank: AS9002 (RETN Limited)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
83. ^ "AS Rank: AS1273 (Vodafone Group PLC)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
84. ^ "AS1273 Cable and Wireless Worldwide plc - bgp.he.net". bgp.he.net. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
85. ^ "AS Rank: AS2828 (MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.
86. ^ [67][68][69][70]
87. ^ "Internet Service Provider 3-Tier Model | ThousandEyes". www.thousandeyes.com. Retrieved 2021-07-12.
88. ^ "AS Rank: AS7922 (Comcast Cable Communications, LLC)". Retrieved 2020-10-26.

* v
* t
* e

Telecommunications

History|

* Beacon
* Broadcasting
* Cable protection system
* Cable TV
* Communications satellite
* Computer network
* Data compression
* audio
* DCT
* image
* video
* Digital media
* Internet video
* online video platform
* social media
* streaming
* Drums
* Edholm's law
* Electrical telegraph
* Fax
* Heliographs
* Hydraulic telegraph
* Information Age
* Information revolution
* Internet
* Mass media
* Mobile phone
* Smartphone
* Optical telecommunication
* Optical telegraphy
* Pager
* Photophone
* Prepaid mobile phone
* Radio
* Radiotelephone
* Satellite communications
* Semaphore
* Phryctoria
* Semiconductor
* device
* MOSFET
* transistor
* Smoke signals
* Telecommunications history
* Telautograph
* Telegraphy
* Teleprinter (teletype)
* Telephone
* The Telephone Cases
* Television
* digital
* streaming
* Undersea telegraph line
* Videotelephony
* Whistled language
* Wireless revolution

Pioneers|

* Nasir Ahmed
* Edwin Howard Armstrong
* Mohamed M. Atalla
* John Logie Baird
* Paul Baran
* John Bardeen
* Alexander Graham Bell
* Emile Berliner
* Tim Berners-Lee
* Francis Blake
* Jagadish Chandra Bose
* Charles Bourseul
* Walter Houser Brattain
* Vint Cerf
* Claude Chappe
* Yogen Dalal
* Donald Davies
* Daniel Davis Jr.
* Amos Dolbear
* Thomas Edison
* Philo Farnsworth
* Reginald Fessenden
* Lee de Forest
* Elisha Gray
* Oliver Heaviside
* Robert Hooke
* Erna Schneider Hoover
* Harold Hopkins
* Gardiner Greene Hubbard
* Bob Kahn
* Dawon Kahng
* Charles K. Kao
* Narinder Singh Kapany
* Hedy Lamarr
* Roberto Landell
* Innocenzo Manzetti
* Guglielmo Marconi
* Robert Metcalfe
* Antonio Meucci
* Samuel Morse
* Jun-ichi Nishizawa
* Charles Grafton Page
* Radia Perlman
* Alexander Stepanovich Popov
* Tivadar Puskás
* Johann Philipp Reis
* Claude Shannon
* Almon Brown Strowger
* Henry Sutton
* Charles Sumner Tainter
* Nikola Tesla
* Camille Tissot
* Alfred Vail
* Thomas A. Watson
* Charles Wheatstone
* Vladimir K. Zworykin
* Internet pioneers

Transmission
media|

* Coaxial cable
* Fiber-optic communication
* optical fiber
* Free-space optical communication
* Molecular communication
* Radio waves
* wireless
* Transmission line
* telecommunication circuit

Network topology
and switching|

* Bandwidth
* Links
* Network switching
* circuit
* packet
* Nodes
* terminal
* Telephone exchange

Multiplexing|

* Space-division
* Frequency-division
* Time-division
* Polarization-division
* Orbital angular-momentum
* Code-division

Concepts|

* Communication protocol
* Computer network
* Data transmission
* Store and forward
* Telecommunications equipment

Types of network|

* Cellular network
* Ethernet
* ISDN
* LAN
* Mobile
* NGN
* Public Switched Telephone
* Radio
* Television
* Telex
* UUCP
* WAN
* Wireless network

Notable networks|

* ARPANET
* BITNET
* CYCLADES
* FidoNet
* Internet
* Internet2
* JANET
* NPL network
* TANet
* Toasternet
* Usenet

Locations|

* Africa
* Americas
* North
* South
* Antarctica
* Asia
* Europe
* Oceania
* Global telecommunications regulation bodies

* Telecommunication portal
* Category
* Outline
* Commons

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template