[109006] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Mon Nov 3 10:24:38 2008
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:24:27 -0600
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: davids@webmaster.com,
north American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCEPPANAD.davids@webmaster.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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
