Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: The large ISPs and Peering

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Thu Jul 26 13:33:32 2001

There is the larger problem of anti-trust issues. Those large providers
collectively represent more than 60% of the market. I believe that this is
the real basis of the concern. Such an arrangement could be construed as
being anti-competitive. Were IBM to make such an arrangement with IBM and
AT&T then DOJ might become very active. The same holds true here.

Companies holding such large market-share control cannot quite do things the
way that they want because we (collectively) have made laws that have deemed
such activities as public-policy effecting activities and subject to some
regulation, by public bodies. I don't see where that has changed. Even in
the spirit of telcom co-opetition, such activity can still be construed as
collusion. I'm suprised that their lawyers let them do that. Also, the past
30-years of track-record clearly shows that such activity cannot be kept
secret.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Aitken [mailto:jaitken@aitken.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:16 AM
> To: Curtis Maurand
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: The large ISPs and Peering
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:21:54AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote:
> > A rose by any other name...  The fact is, and history shows 
> us, that 
> > when cartels form, things get bad for the consumer.  [...]
> > However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because
> > the process for choosing them was closed.   
> 
> This makes absolutely no sense.  Are you saying that uninvolved
> parties should be able to dictate where and how large "promising
> local ISPs" should interconnect?  Maybe we should have a vote on
> NANOG!
> 
>   "How does this choice of interconnection point make you feel?"
> 
> 
> > Does it make sense for all of
> > my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in 
> Maine and in
> > the same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 
> miles away?
> 
> There's nothing preventing your provider from establishing additional
> regional peering where appropriate; if they fail to provide the level
> of service that you require you should vote with your wallet 
> and select
> another provider.
> 
> 
> > There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium."  
> > They will collude on network build out and stop competing [...]
> > If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those 
> strides [...]
> > A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices.
> > The consortium will control supply at a lower level.  
> > Prices will increase.
> > Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price.  
> > There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down?  
> > If you think that's not true, think again.
> 
> Proof by repeated assertion, eh?
> 
> I'm really confused here.  How did we go from "certain large ISPs
> are working together to reduce the cost of interconnection amongst
> themselves" to "there will be no competition between these large
> providers?"
> 
> 
> --Jeff
> 




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.