North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: AOL & Cogent

  • From: John Kristoff
  • Date: Sun Dec 29 20:14:15 2002

On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:12:16PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port
> revenue for exchange point operators.  where's the market in that?  how

I think you just answered your own question.  Exchange point operations.

> could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions?

I think its a difficult market to exist in anyway.

It may be that networks can make revenue on characteristics of their
network other than simply bps.  The quality (read: latency, loss factor,
transparency/or-not, connectedness) and services (read: various types
of servers such as for games, voice/multimedia gateways, storage,
flexibility - perhaps deliver service further than the smartjack?)
may be what differeniates one from another.  This doesn't seem to be
happening though and I'm not sure how likely it will be.

If the market is soley about the number of bits, soon this might
not be an attractive market for a lot of providers to be in.  If
there are a lot of suppliers and the ease of changing suppliers is
simple (good reason for you to want to get rid of NAT :-), the
market will be commoditized with consumers simply moving their
connections around to Cogent-like providers on a month-to-month
basis.  This assumes most suppliers provide a reasonable level of
quality, which most probably do.  If there are only a few suppliers
(oligopoly?), little choice and strong barriers to entry, it might
be a much more attractive market to be in.  As a customer, I'd like
to see the former more than the latter.  Perhaps then the services
above would be more forthcoming?