North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Sprint peering policy

  • From: David Schwartz
  • Date: Mon Jul 01 14:04:44 2002


On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:

>Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
>Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
>party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they
>are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the
>connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for
>value.

	Suppose that X is presented with a take it or leave it deal. Suppose further 
that X, on net, benefits from this deal. Why should they care how much or how 
little Y, Z, or T benefit from the deal? What kind of business sense does 
that make?

>Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands caught in the
>cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for nothing in return?

	We're not talking about "nothing in return". We're talking about an 
arrangement between two parties that both benefit from. Why should one party 
care how much the other benefits? (Except, of course, as possible leverage to 
negotiate a better deal.)

>Peering with anyone is a pain, but a necessary one. If you don't have
>something anyone wants, your not going to get peered (for free) with anyone.
>You have ZERO value to anyone else, therefore, expect to pay for your
>connections. Does it really have to be more complicated than that?

	I don't think so, but that's not what I'm objecting to. What I'm objecting 
to is "I won't do it because it benefits someone else" even when it also 
benefits you. Do you demand a payment from your neighbors before you paint 
your house or do you paint your house if the benefit to you is more than the 
cost to you? What do you care whether and how much your neighbors benefit?

>Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory
>issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of
>mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_
>would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy paid from tax
>dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who
>have no other redeeming value. This way, I get paid, Y gets to brag to his
>peers that he is hooked up with X and my tax bill goes up...
>
>Talk about false progress. Isn't fudging the books how we got here in the
>1st place?
>
>No thanks.

	Actually, I think you can make peering fair in a much more simple way. 
Simply explain to people a sensible and rational way to evaluate their 
peering decisions. "Does it benefit me as much as or more than anyone else" 
is neither sensible not rational. "Does it benefit me more than it costs me?" 
and "Is it the best deal I can negotiate for this amount of benefit?", on the 
other hand, are sensible, rational, and fair.

	DS