Sprint peering policy

Mon Jul 1 17:11:46 UTC 2002

> On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
> >
> >Mike Leber <mleber at he.net> writes:
> >
> >>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when
> considered by
> >>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or
> geographical coverage.
> >
> >A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
> >
> >Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by
> >interconnecting with each other?
> >
> >If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X
> >and Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal
> >value by interconnecting with the other, than that party usually
> >balks.
>
> 	This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care
> how much value Y gets
> out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King
> should charge
> hungrier people more for a Whopper.
>

Don't you think they would if they could? :)

Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they
are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the
connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for
value.

Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands caught in the
cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for nothing in return?

Peering with anyone is a pain, but a necessary one. If you don't have
something anyone wants, your not going to get peered (for free) with anyone.
You have ZERO value to anyone else, therefore, expect to pay for your
connections. Does it really have to be more complicated than that?

Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory
issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of
mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_
would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy paid from tax
dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who
have no other redeeming value. This way, I get paid, Y gets to brag to his
peers that he is hooked up with X and my tax bill goes up...

Talk about false progress. Isn't fudging the books how we got here in the
1st place?

No thanks.

-PF