[171784] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Dobbins)
Wed May 14 10:15:30 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=rySj5yH94k19zgtuZreZezBaMsMSVkm3P7WWfkpypRhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:27:57 +0700
To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> =
wrote:
> I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3 =
the price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less =
than 1/10th of the overall traffic volume.
My guess is that from the perspective of the access providers, they =
aren't selling traffic volume or routes, per se - their view is that =
they're selling privileged engagement with large numbers of potentially =
monetizable individual prospects.
Note that I'm neither endorsing nor disputing this perspective, just =
mooting it as a possible explanation.
Are there any real-world models out there for revenue-sharing between =
app/content providers and access networks which would eliminate or =
reduce 'paid peering' (an alternate way to think of it is as 'delimited =
transit', another oxymoron like 'paid peering', but with a slightly =
different emphasis) monetary exchanges?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Equo ne credite, Teucri.
-- Laoco=F6n
