Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: is this like a peering war somehow?
From: James <james () towardex com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:16:44 -0500

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:45:18PM +0000, Edward B. DREGER wrote:

DG> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:49:12 -0500
DG> From: Daniel Golding

DG> The RBOCs need to get over this - they are floundering around to try and
DG> find a way to recoup network costs. This is one front. IMS is another. I

It's not just RBOCs.  Approximately five years back I approached a 
cableco about peering.  They wanted to charge more for peering than what 
they did for transit.  Justification?  "It's priority access to our 

Note that it was NOT due to transit costs.  They still wanted the higher 
fee if one ran a private line directly to their POP.

This was for a mostly-content network.  So much for content/eyeball 

Well, since content/eyeball is a two-way street and goes both ways, I
would not be surprised when some major content network starts telling
access networks to pay up to peer or otherwise to gain access to their

BellSouth is better off buying transit from Cogent and forget this
"how do we make the most money off of our access network" mantra ;)


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]