|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: peering charges?
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jonathan Heiliger wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote: > > |} There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to > |} relative worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large > |} ISPs are generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume > |} of mutual traffic. > > Large ISPs should probably be interested in access to content, without it > their users could find the Internet a very boring place. Yes, and the current peering requirements are enough to keep most small ISPs from growing. I am spending 10s of thousands a month over what I need to spend just because people want to see full DS3 network. I can understand people would want me to be at all NAPs, but why should I need 10X the bandwidth I need for my customers? There are also problems with providers saying that I need to be at every NAP they are at, but what do I do when say a NAP in the east can't give me a connection? They first don't want to let me in at all, then they say that we can't connect until they get a new gigaswitch. I was able to get a gigaswitch for my NAP in 24 hours, why would it take 6 weeks? Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Arlington, VA 22201 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|