Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Tore Anderson
tore at linpro.no
Mon Nov 3 15:41:11 UTC 2008
* Stephen Sprunk
> What it all comes down to is that the majority of eyeballs are on
> "residential" connections that are relatively expensive to provide
> but for which are sold at a relatively low price (often 1/10th as
> much per megabit of capacity). Those eyeball ISPs cannot or will not
> charge their customers the full cost of "receiving" traffic so they
> want money from the more profitable content ISPs "sending" the
> traffic to offset their losses.
Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow
between those two ISPs _anyway_. Therefore, in many cases the only
ones to profit from them not reaching a peering agreement
(settlement-free or not) is their upstream(s), who is probably
delighted to be able to charge them both for the transit traffic.
Regards,
--
Tore Anderson
More information about the NANOG
mailing list