[109010] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tore Anderson)
Mon Nov 3 10:45:09 2008
From: Tore Anderson <tore@linpro.no>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:41:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <490F17AB.4080109@sprunk.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
* Stephen Sprunk
> 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.
Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow
between those two ISPs _anyway_. Therefore, in many cases the only
ones to profit from them not reaching a peering agreement
(settlement-free or not) is their upstream(s), who is probably
delighted to be able to charge them both for the transit traffic.
Regards,
--
Tore Anderson
