|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, "Gary Hale" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of small > vs. big or being on your own network from source-to-destination. Peering > is an enabler ... and gives all an opportunity to share content globally > ... kinda' fundamental to the Internet consortium. > > Is your question, 'Since fiber is so cheap, why doesn't everyone build > an autonomous, facilities-based, global "Internet" network that competes > for narrowband/broadband "pullers" of data and hosting/data centers/etc. > for content providers ("pulled-fromers" or "pushers" of data)? > > Gary > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Py [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM > To: Gordon Cook; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit > > >> Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be >> had for $20 per megabit per second? > > The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit. > > Michel. > > > Gary, "Peering is an enabler" "gives all an opportunity to share content globally" "fundamental to the Internet consortium" This is like the "greatest hits" compendium collected from various failed 1990's service provider business plans :) People should be careful. Peering is a business/networking arrangement that can save them money (or not). Those who try to imbue it with philosophical significance must be viewed with skepticism. Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
|