But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food, they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it, no? --Phil -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of David Schwartz Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:45 PM To: vgill@vijaygill.com; Mike Leber Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy 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. DS
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:22:25 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food, they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it, no?
--Phil
Obviously any business would like to get the highest possible price for anything they sell and not one dollar less. On the other hand, if a deal provides any net benefit, once all costs are taken into account, a rational company will take it. So if company X refuses a deal that provides it a net benefit just because company Y gets more out of it than company X, and as a result company Y goes to company Z instead, company X has acted foolishly and irrationally. DS
participants (2)
-
David Schwartz -
Phil Rosenthal