net neutrality and peering wars continue
Leo Bicknell
bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Jun 19 23:39:48 UTC 2013
On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.
I agree with Randy, but will go one further.
Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your home market.
You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one.
Google Fiber, anyone?
Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all the products I sell" is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20130619/90cdd2fe/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list