From: Phil Rosenthal (no email)
Date: Mon Jul 01 2002 - 13:22:25 EDT
But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
no?
--Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of
David Schwartz
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:45 PM
To: ; Mike Leber
Cc:
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
>Mike Leber <> 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.
DS
|
|
|