North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: peering charges?
- From: Vadim Antonov
- Date: Mon Jan 27 17:00:50 1997
Dirk Harms-Merbitz <email@example.com> wrote:
>> What is the value of a packet? It is not even clear if packet crossing
>> from your network to my network gives _me_ any value. It can as well
>> be for _your_ benefit.
>Nah, you originated the packet for reasons unknown to me.
Yeah? Even when that packet is the direct result of your earlier DNS request?
> In a capitalist economy, price generally follows value.
>Scarcity creates value, hence the desire to differentiate.
Economics 101 again. Scarcity does not create anything. It's merely
a range on demand-supply curve.
>Once I'm connected, however, transitting traffic through your network is
>the only thing that I'm interested in. Why else would I want to connect to
You only interested in transmission at the point where you know _where_
to transmit. Before that you have _no_ idea you may need some specific
destination. You don't know all URLs you will ever use beforehand.
Thus, universal accessibility has permanent value.
> That's because he has (implied) obligation to provide adequate
> service during peak usage.
>An simplified example. Lets say I have a direct T1 between A and B. A
>starts to transfer 4 GBytes from B to A and uses 100% of the bandwidth.
>Then B starts another transfer of 4GBytes from A to B. Both now use 50% of
>the bandwidth and each transfer takes twice as long.
It is a gross oversimplification. Things do not work like that.
>I can still telnet between the two locations, even play quake - the load
>is hardly noticable for short transfers.
Actually, quite opposite. The handshake has nothing like quick start,
only exponential back-off; so it is more vulnerable than data transmission
stage of the connection.
> Connection costs are generally figured into non-recurring charges.
> They usually do not exceed costs of equipment and overhead.
>That was my point. Why charge a higher _recurring_ fee for a faster
Because the share of higher-level facilities needed to accomodate
projected usage is more.
> This is an example of patently meaningless analogy. _Every_ business
> (even pyramid scams) has some capital costs. So what.
>Why meaningless? There's no way to get the money back out once the cable
>is in the ground or the chip is being fabricated.
And so there is no way to recover all money spent on building a rental complex
or sent out to first level of the pyramid.
It's the nature of investment, ok?
> You will be surprised. Sprint has 6 (six) strands of fiber in its
>How do you know?
I used to work there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -