|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Sprint peering policy
But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food, they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it, no? --Phil -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Schwartz Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:45 PM To: [email protected]; Mike Leber Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote: > >Mike Leber <[email protected]> writes: > >>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by >>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage. > >A good proxy for the above is to ask the question: > >Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by >interconnecting with each other? > >If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X and >Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal value by >interconnecting with the other, than that party usually balks. This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much value Y gets out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should charge hungrier people more for a Whopper. DS
|