On 9/17/2010 10:17 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Also, Google, Yahoo, et al tend to base their peering decisions on technical, not business, standards, which makes sense because peering, above all other interconnect types, is mutually beneficial to both parties. More to the point, even the likes of Comcast won't shut down their peers to Yahoo because Google sends them a check.
I disagree. Minimum throughput for wasting a port on a router is a business reason, not technical. Peering is all about business and equal equity. Not to say that technical reasons don't play a part. Limitations of throughput requires some peering, but there is definitely a business model attached to it to determine the equity of the peers.
And I do agree, a private peer is definitely one technical means by which this prioritization could happen, but that's not the practice today.
Penny saved is a penny earned. Peering is generally cheaper than transit. In addition, it usually provides higher class of service. Money doesn't have to change hands for there to be value attached to the action. At the same time, when money does change hands, the paying party feels they are getting something of value. Is it unfair that I pay streaming sites to get more/earlier video feeds over the free users? I still have to deal with advertisements in some cases, which generates the primary revenue for the streaming site. Why shouldn't a content provider be able to pay for a higher class of service, so long as others are equally allowed to pay for it? Jack