|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: C&W Peering Problem?
On Fri, 01 June 2001, Steve Schaefer wrote: > How is it that UUNet is getting a free ride? The ILEC's customer pays > for that line every month. (OK, the customer underpays, but the ILEC > gets to make it up in access charges as part of the regulation process.) > > The only reason that the traffic is unbalanced is that the ILEC's wrote > the rules to favor that traffic arrangement. Too late to whine about it. Since on the Internet the sender pays for sent traffic, and the receiver pays for received traffic, I've never understood the argument advanced by BBN/Genuity, UUNET and now apparently C&W that unbalanced traffic means someone is getting a free ride. If the customer pays flat-rate, you collect the same amount of money no matter how little traffic they send or receive. The 95% charging used by some providers is the greater of *either* inbound or outbound traffic. So imbalanced traffic to or from your customers is paid by your customers. So, can anyone explain why C&W, UUNET or Genuity care about traffic balance, other than to limit competition by providers who are better at attracting particular types of customers than them? If you are good at being a webhoster, your traffic will have one profile. If you are good at being an access provider, your traffic will have another profile. If you are mediocre at everything, I guess your traffic will be balanced.
|