RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

From: James Jun (no email)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2008 - 09:32:35 EST

  • Next message: Mikael Abrahamsson: "RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage"

    > > How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable
    > price?
    > > If no body steps up, we don't need it.
    >
    > There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked
    > capitalism can have disastrous results.

    And there are lot of examples and ample evidence in history, in many areas,
    that complete regulation, complete socialism can have disastrous results as
    well.

    If you want to have a good idea on how the internet will look like in the US
    after regulation, simply look at Australia. The government imposed
    regulation early on in internet infrastructure market caused nothing but
    raising the entry barrier for small ISPs, only creating government-approved
    monopoly for major telcos/carriers. Only such regulation creates a
    situation where it is cheaper and affordable for a smaller ISP to route
    traffic from .AU to .US, then back to .AU than interconnect directly with
    incumbent carrier in their own country. So yes, more regulations definitely
    help the internet indeed (by adding extra 300ms into the process).

    Instead of calling for socialist/communist policies to regulate the transit
    industry, the single-homed networks can simply multihome. Because of
    Cogent, the cost of transit has come down to single-digit per megabit that
    even after adding transport costs, it's now affordable to add a 2nd internet
    connection for practically most organizations out there, especially in the
    continental US (the same capitalism that you call 'disatrous results' is the
    same capitalism that brought cheap dollars/meg pricing, allowing smaller
    companies to multihome now when they couldn't afford to do so in the past).

    As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have
    no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either
    networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have
    customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are just as
    negligent to not have multihomed before all of this happened. If you need
    that 100% uptime guarantee, you shouldn't rely on single carrier, nor should
    you rely on government for more regulation. No one can help you but
    yourself in ensuring your uptime-- so perhaps look at your own setup and
    decide that you need that 2nd connection to back you up when first one
    fails. This is a simple business logic.

    James


  • Next message: Mikael Abrahamsson: "RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD