On Mon, 7 May 2001, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
I contend that if quantifiable evidence exists that setting the peering bar high in the name of selling transit and/or restricting new players leads to a downward spiral in network quality ... then evidence exists that can be taken to stockholders and BOD of those companies.
Refusing to peer is not always a bad option if you have a big enough share of the market. In Australia the top 3 providers (Telstra, Optus, connect.com) own about 80% of the market, host most of the domestic content and supply circuits to most other ISPs. It is "pretty hard" to setup peering with any of them. They have very little incentive to peer with smaller ISPs. The small provider will have to connect with one of them anyway and they will obviously make more money changing this provider for the circuit (and the traffic) than just peering for free. On the other hand in New Zealand we have all except on of the large providers well connected by a couple of peering exchanges. This provider is under a lot of pressure to peer with everyone else and at least one other provider has recently shutdown a circuit that was being used for peering (The large provider is trying to force others to pay for circuits directly to it, plus some other fees). -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon@darkmere.gen.nz ihug, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz