[54463] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US-Asia Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Barrows)
Fri Jan 3 09:30:13 2003
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:05:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Barrows <jsb@fireflynetworks.net>
To: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200301030837.h038bbo31243@lo.tech.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> - Transit providers who came to the exchange point for the purpose of
> picking up transit sales.
>
> - If the exchange point operator is the one carrying the traffic, they
> lose for competing with their customers in the previous bullet; they
> will have taken the first steps on the path from being an exchange
> point operator to being a network-plus-colo provider (where they'll
> compete with the network-plus-colo providers just coming out of
> bankruptcy with all their debt scraped off).
i'm still amazed that nobody has brought up the fact that a couple
of the larger colo/exchange operators that claimed they wouldn't
compete with their IP customers are indeed selling IP transit--
intentionally undercutting the prices of the providers that colo'd
there to sell transit partly because the colo/exchange operator
kept telling the world that they would never compete with their
customers in the IP transit space.
clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
customers don't complain too loudly.
not that it's a bad long-term plan-- but I do agree with Stephen
in that it'll be tough for them to survive against the debt-free
big boys if they emerge as clear network-plus-colo competitors
and lose the few remaining bits of their 'neutral' facade.
- jsb
--
Jeff Barrows, President
Firefly Networks
http://FireflyNetworks.net
+1 703 287 4221 Voice
+1 703 288 4003 Facsimile
An Advanced Internet Engineering
& Professional Services Organization
