[39938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The large ISPs and Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Fri Jul 27 10:48:34 2001
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:46:24 -0400
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010727104624.A27534@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ussenterprise.ufp.org>,
nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107271028060.26177-100000@mail.lamere.net>; from curtis@lamere.net on Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:38:53AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:38:53AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote:
> We can look at Opec for starters. The Steel price fixings from the
> "consotium" of american steel companies during the 50's and 60's. What
> makes you think telecomm is any different than any other business? There
> have been numerous hand slappings around price fixing by "consortiums"
> throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's.
Companies don't have to join OPEC to sell oil.
Companies don't have to join a Steel consortium to make or sell Steel.
If UUNet and Sprint didn't peer the Internet would no longer function
in the way we expect.
There is a fundamental business here in that ISP's are _required_ to
do business with each other in order to make the Internet work as users
expect. ISP's will always have business ties to each other, in the
form of paid/free transit/peering. Making that go away makes it all
cease to work, completely.
So, let's try again. These people already do business with each other,
and are forced to by the technology, and customer expectations. They
are trying to reduce their costs. What's the problem?
If down the road a _qualified_ peer is rejected from these spots
because "we don't like you" then you might have a case.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
