net neutrality and peering wars continue

Wed Jun 19 23:44:15 UTC 2013

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 
> 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.

At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and the
reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the 
wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile 
infrastructure. 

-dorian