[163829] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dorian Kim)
Wed Jun 19 19:46:23 2013
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:44:15 -0400
From: Dorian Kim <dorian@blackrose.org>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <09F4B042-43B1-4922-8D64-9A506D3425AA@ufp.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
> > as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> > eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> > of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.
>
> I agree with Randy, but will go one further.
>
> Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your home market.
>
> You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one.
>
> Google Fiber, anyone?
>
> Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all the products I sell" is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio.
At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and the
reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the
wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile
infrastructure.
-dorian
