[Madlug] [spam] Fwd: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

[Dale W. Carder]

I figure those networks (my workplace included[*]) buying transit
at half price know what they are getting into.  Multihoming
to two upstreams is a good enough workaround for these sort of
spats for even an average sized business.

Peering is sort of a broken model, but you also have Senior-VP's
involved who still think the internet should work on a system of
tariffs like the phone systems they have run into the ground.

P2P isn't the problem anymore for big networks, now it is
streaming video.  The content is from few sources like the big
content delivery networks so things may get ugly on that end,
but also for last-mile isp's who may be forced to change their
billing model to be usage-based.

Dale

[*] we exchange > 75% of our traffic via settlement-free peering,
the remainder we purchase



On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Marcin Antkiewicz wrote:

> From NANOG (north american networks operators group). Taken out of
> context post which explains why we see arguments pro/con network
> neutrality.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
> Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
> To: davids at webmaster.com, north American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
> <nanog at merit.edu>
>
>
> David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> Your customers pay you to carry their traffic across your network  
>> between them and the next network in the line. There is no reason  
>> anyone else should compensate you for doing this.
>>
>
> What it all comes down to is that the majority of eyeballs are on
> "residential" connections that are relatively expensive to provide but
> for which are sold at a relatively low price (often 1/10th as much per
> megabit of capacity).  Those eyeball ISPs cannot or will not charge
> their customers the full cost of "receiving" traffic so they want
> money from the more profitable content ISPs "sending" the traffic to
> offset their losses.
>
> This is also one of the reasons eyeball ISPs want to stamp out P2P:
> both ends of the connections are on unprofitable lines and there is
> _nobody_ paying for the traffic.  Just follow the money.
>
> S
>
>
> --
> Marcin Antkiewicz
> _______________________________________________
> Madlug mailing list  -  Madlug at madisonlinux.org
> http://www.madisonlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/madlug