[8976] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave O'Shea)
Fri May 2 09:27:22 1997
From: "Dave O'Shea" <doshea@mail.wiltel.net>
To: "Jeremiah Kristal" <jeremiah@corp.idt.net>,
"Stephen Balbach" <stephen@clark.net>
Cc: "Gordon Cook" <cook@netaxs.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>,
<inet-access@earth.com>, <dave@oldcolo.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:19:21 -0500
The truth is that this *is* good for UUnet. Not good for most ISP's, and
likely not good for users: Customers of UUnet, including "well known
services", will find their traffic reduced because of users who can no
longer get to them, or give up because of bottlenecks.
Do you provide customer support - downloadable patches, etc., across UUnet?
Well, you'd better increase your phone support staff - lots of users are
going to be unable to download those patches due to UUnet's overloaded
"leaf" links. Just think: The money that UUnet's customers will save by
having a few other providers subsidize the peering connections should
almost cover the increased Fedex bill and the swollen 800 service tab!
If I was the webmaster at a heavily trafficked site that depended on UUnet
for connectivity, I'd be wondering how much business I'd be losing because
of this policy.
Place advertising on a site that's hosted somewhere on UUnet? It's a sure
bet that users will be looking at more complex ways to avoid downloading
it.
Dave O'Shea,
Speaking only for himself
