North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: peering charges?
- From: David Whipple
- Date: Mon Jan 27 20:20:05 1997
Yes, that is exactly what we do..;-)
Any other providers want to give me a free DS3??????
>From: Paul A Vixie [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Sunday, January 26, 1997 1:25 PM
>Subject: Re: peering charges?
>> Well, my guess would be that if you don't have a DS3 backbone, why
>> would the big guys want to peer with you anyway? If you don't need
>> that much bandwidth (or don't have it) odds are you don't have enough
>> customers for the big guys to want to peer with you.
>Chances are that the big guys all have POPs in the little guys' areas,
>and that there is or could be an exchange point in each such area, and
>that the big guys' customers will have better access to the little guys'
>customers if peering is done.
>The reasons we don't do this aren't related to network size. There are
>three reasons: (a) big guy thinks their excrement is odorless and that
>everybody else ought to have to pay to get access to their perfect network
>and their spamless customers; (b) big guy wants little guy to pay fair share
>of WAN costs; and (c) it's a tiny bit harder to "peer" if you're only
>sending local area routes rather than sending all of them everywhere.
>I agree with with the information provider model. Ultimately, entities
>with attractive content will be selling access to wide area providers, who
>will sell it to local area providers, who will sell it to customers. This
>is the old "gatekeeper.dec.com" model extended to fee-based content. I
>heard that Microsoft was letting providers terminate T3's with them since
>good access to Microsoft's content is a selling point for an access
>provider's customer base. Why should such a content provider have to buy
>peering, or pay wide area telecom costs? On the other hand, right now
>Microsoft is still effectively buying transit, and at some point they will
>just charge for access to their content and let other people charge each
>other for indirect access to that content.
>And Microsoft is just the first/largest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -