[109007] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Hargrave)
Mon Nov 3 10:27:50 2008
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:27:39 +0000
From: Will Hargrave <will@harg.net>
To: davids@webmaster.com
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKCEPPANAD.davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
David Schwartz wrote:
> The ratio argument is nonsense. If your customers want to receive mostly,
> and receiving is expensive, they should pay you more to cover your higher
> costs in receiving traffic. If my customers mostly want to send, and sending
> is cheap, then I should pay less, since I want to do the cheap thing and you
> want to do the expensive thing.
If it costs one party to an SFI agreement more than the other (total cost,
including intangibles) this makes the agreement less attractive, perhaps to the
point of inequitability. Where one party profits more from the agreement than
another, there is less incentive for the interconnection to be settlement-free.
There is no father figure standing there saying 'Party A and Party B must SFI
regardless of cost' - that decision is up to the relevant commercial minds
within Party A and Party B to carry out the required analysis and negotiate as
required.
Will
