On 2016-06-18 12:54, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
What Randy just wrote is exactly the point I was trying to make in my last email. Some real estate facility owners/managers have got into the mistaken mindset that they can get the greatest value and the most monthly revenue from the square-footage of their building by charging additional MRC XC fees to the tenants of the building.
There are some VERY sucessful companies that would strongly disagree with you.
When in fact the opposite is true, and we need a concerted community effort to lobby every IX real estate owner with this fact: Your real estate will be MORE valuable and will attract a greater critical mass of carriers, eyeball networks, CDNs, huge hosting providers/colo/VM, etc if you make the crossconnects free.
But then why would we want to do that? If you are correct and doing so would raise the value of the real esatate, doesn't that mean that the building managers would be able to charge operators a whole lot more than they are able to today, in aggregate?
If the price of XC drops to ~zero, then tenants are going to do a lot more of it and thereby get more value from the IX, which means people will be _willing_ to pay more for that real estate, rather than complaining about XC price-gouging. It's as much perception as it is math. OTOH, if prices climb to unreasonable levels, then more space will (eventually) be made available, e.g. by pushing non-IX tenants out of the building, by laying ample dark fiber to a nearby building for expansion (but still ~free XC) or by a competitor appearing. The problems come with expansion that is _not_ nearby, i.e. XC can no longer be ~free, yet the operator still tries to pretend it's a single facility. There are plenty of folks in the business of transporting bits over long distances; IMHO, an IX shouldn't be one of them. S -- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov