|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The large ISPs and Peering
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:21:54AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote: > A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that > when cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. [...] > However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because > the process for choosing them was closed. This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that uninvolved parties should be able to dictate where and how large "promising local ISPs" should interconnect? Maybe we should have a vote on NANOG! "How does this choice of interconnection point make you feel?" > Does it make sense for all of > my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in > the same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away? There's nothing preventing your provider from establishing additional regional peering where appropriate; if they fail to provide the level of service that you require you should vote with your wallet and select another provider. > There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." > They will collude on network build out and stop competing [...] > If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those strides [...] > A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices. > The consortium will control supply at a lower level. > Prices will increase. > Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price. > There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down? > If you think that's not true, think again. Proof by repeated assertion, eh? I'm really confused here. How did we go from "certain large ISPs are working together to reduce the cost of interconnection amongst themselves" to "there will be no competition between these large providers?" --Jeff
|