On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> writes:
Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when
considered by
revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by interconnecting with each other?
If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X and Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal value by interconnecting with the other, than that party usually balks.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much value Y gets out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should charge hungrier people more for a Whopper.
Don't you think they would if they could? :) Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for value. Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands caught in the cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for nothing in return? Peering with anyone is a pain, but a necessary one. If you don't have something anyone wants, your not going to get peered (for free) with anyone. You have ZERO value to anyone else, therefore, expect to pay for your connections. Does it really have to be more complicated than that? Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_ would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy paid from tax dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who have no other redeeming value. This way, I get paid, Y gets to brag to his peers that he is hooked up with X and my tax bill goes up... Talk about false progress. Isn't fudging the books how we got here in the 1st place? No thanks. -PF
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for value.
Suppose that X is presented with a take it or leave it deal. Suppose further that X, on net, benefits from this deal. Why should they care how much or how little Y, Z, or T benefit from the deal? What kind of business sense does that make?
Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands caught in the cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for nothing in return?
We're not talking about "nothing in return". We're talking about an arrangement between two parties that both benefit from. Why should one party care how much the other benefits? (Except, of course, as possible leverage to negotiate a better deal.)
Peering with anyone is a pain, but a necessary one. If you don't have something anyone wants, your not going to get peered (for free) with anyone. You have ZERO value to anyone else, therefore, expect to pay for your connections. Does it really have to be more complicated than that?
I don't think so, but that's not what I'm objecting to. What I'm objecting to is "I won't do it because it benefits someone else" even when it also benefits you. Do you demand a payment from your neighbors before you paint your house or do you paint your house if the benefit to you is more than the cost to you? What do you care whether and how much your neighbors benefit?
Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_ would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy paid from tax dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who have no other redeeming value. This way, I get paid, Y gets to brag to his peers that he is hooked up with X and my tax bill goes up...
Talk about false progress. Isn't fudging the books how we got here in the 1st place?
No thanks.
Actually, I think you can make peering fair in a much more simple way. Simply explain to people a sensible and rational way to evaluate their peering decisions. "Does it benefit me as much as or more than anyone else" is neither sensible not rational. "Does it benefit me more than it costs me?" and "Is it the best deal I can negotiate for this amount of benefit?", on the other hand, are sensible, rational, and fair. DS
Paul A Flores wrote:
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> writes:
Don't you think they would if they could? :)
Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for value.
If indeed, two carriers are only exchanging -peer- routes, not transit, how -could- one or the other feel they are getting an unfair balance of traffic ? This is -only- unbalanced when the cost of the PORT on the main carrier exceeds the bandwidth traded... probably payback is a couple hundred K a second over the course of a year. Then again, of that is all it is the secondary carrier could hardly cost justify the cost of the wire, thus self limiting the abuse. By definition, if it is ONLY peer routes, it would be strictly a trade of traffic between mutual customers. Back to my original question.
-PF
participants (3)
-
David Schwartz -
Paul A Flores -
Richard Irving