Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

From: Stephen Sprunk (no email)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2008 - 10:24:27 EST

  • Next message: Will Hargrave: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"

    David Schwartz wrote:
    > Your customers pay you to carry their traffic across your network between them and the next network in the line. There is no reason anyone else should compensate you for doing this.
    >

    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.

    This is also one of the reasons eyeball ISPs want to stamp out P2P: both
    ends of the connections are on unprofitable lines and there is _nobody_
    paying for the traffic. Just follow the money.

    S


  • Next message: Will Hargrave: "Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD