North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: peering charges?
Dirk Harms-Merbitz <[email protected]> wrote: >> What is the value of a packet? It is not even clear if packet crossing >> from your network to my network gives _me_ any value. It can as well >> be for _your_ benefit. >Nah, you originated the packet for reasons unknown to me. Yeah? Even when that packet is the direct result of your earlier DNS request? > In a capitalist economy, price generally follows value. >Scarcity creates value, hence the desire to differentiate. Economics 101 again. Scarcity does not create anything. It's merely a range on demand-supply curve. >Once I'm connected, however, transitting traffic through your network is >the only thing that I'm interested in. Why else would I want to connect to >your network? You only interested in transmission at the point where you know _where_ to transmit. Before that you have _no_ idea you may need some specific destination. You don't know all URLs you will ever use beforehand. Thus, universal accessibility has permanent value. > That's because he has (implied) obligation to provide adequate > service during peak usage. >An simplified example. Lets say I have a direct T1 between A and B. A >starts to transfer 4 GBytes from B to A and uses 100% of the bandwidth. >Then B starts another transfer of 4GBytes from A to B. Both now use 50% of >the bandwidth and each transfer takes twice as long. It is a gross oversimplification. Things do not work like that. >I can still telnet between the two locations, even play quake - the load >is hardly noticable for short transfers. Actually, quite opposite. The handshake has nothing like quick start, only exponential back-off; so it is more vulnerable than data transmission stage of the connection. > Connection costs are generally figured into non-recurring charges. > They usually do not exceed costs of equipment and overhead. >That was my point. Why charge a higher _recurring_ fee for a faster >connection? Because the share of higher-level facilities needed to accomodate projected usage is more. > This is an example of patently meaningless analogy. _Every_ business > (even pyramid scams) has some capital costs. So what. >Why meaningless? There's no way to get the money back out once the cable >is in the ground or the chip is being fabricated. And so there is no way to recover all money spent on building a rental complex or sent out to first level of the pyramid. It's the nature of investment, ok? > You will be surprised. Sprint has 6 (six) strands of fiber in its >How do you know? I used to work there. --vadim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|