C&W Peering Problem?

Fri Jun 1 23:15:33 UTC 2001

"Should UUNET compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their
modem pools at a few cents per minute.  Obviously the traffic is extremely
imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?"

In this case, I have a very flippant, but sincere answer:

The ILEC's dictated the terms.  Let them suffer.

They looked at local dialing patterns and saw that the (presumed) target
markets for CLEC's would generate more outbound traffic than inbound
traffic.  In an effort to stick it to the CLEC's, they imposed a
settlement structure that would appear to be fair, but which would
actually be unbalanced.

The CLEC's weren't driven by a monopoly mentality, so they simply changed
their target customer base.

How is it that UUNet is getting a free ride?  The ILEC's customer pays
for that line every month.  (OK, the customer underpays, but the ILEC
gets to make it up in access charges as part of the regulation process.)

The only reason that the traffic is unbalanced is that the ILEC's wrote
the rules to favor that traffic arrangement.  Too late to whine about it.

It's just as if C&W had dictated a policy saying "we won't peer with you
unless you have more content than access" then turned around and said to
the same providers "we won't peer with you if your traffic is unbalanced."

-steve

On 1 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:

>
> On Fri, 01 June 2001, "Scott Patterson" wrote:
> > Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction
> > its in, it just has to be balanced.
>
> I wonder how is the end of reciprocal compensation going to affect
> large dial modem pool providers (e.g. UUNET, Genuity).  Should UUNET
> compensate the LEC for all that inbound traffic to their modem pools
> at a few cents per minute.  Obviously the traffic is extremely
> imbalanced, so why should UUNET get a free ride on the LEC's network?
>
>
>