North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Wayne Bouchard wrote: > > The argument about national backbones costing money is a red herring. OF > > COURSE they cost money. But they open business markets to you that are > > otherwise closed - being able to sell in multiple cities without the customer > > having to backhaul on their own, VPNs across geographical areas, etc. If you > > don't like the price:performance balance of that equation, then you shouldn't > > build one. > > Well, this goes into "cutting off peers means your customers can't > access mine." There's two problems with this: First, the key point is > YOU can't access THEIRS without buying transit. Most ISPs aren't gonna > permit this loss of connectivity and will buy transit.. it just won't > be from the company that pulls the plug. Lets also note who its gonna > hurt more.. the company with fewer customer sites that need to get > accessed. The complaint ratio between the two groups are gonna be > wholly lopsided. The smaller ISP will receive far more complaints than > the larger one. That sounds like extortion and a violation of the Sherman Act. Someone ought to look into this. I note that violations of the Sherman Act are criminal as well as civil matters, and if done in collusion (and lock-step changes in policy by "competitors" are one of the tests for this) you can even raise a RICO charge. > In my view, whats being proposed has more or less been in the works > for quite a while. Because of the customer's demands for 100% > connectivity, there's not a whole lot to stand in the way. And as long > as MFS/UUNET/WorldCom run the two biggest exchange points (and are > thus getting paid exorbatant amounce for connectivity INTO that NAP -- > thus making it so you really pay *3* times for a packet to cross the > network -- along with various customer circuits into that NAP because > of the "near exit" -- making it actually 4 times if you consider loop > charges), there's no reason it can't continue. There's a fix for this. Set up another peering point. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -