North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:04 AM, John Curran wrote:
Which is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY irrelevant to the peer network. If your network can't cover the cost of delivering bits from the DSLAM to the CPE, why in the hell are you in this business?At 9:40 AM -0500 11/1/05, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the receiving network
You've been doing this for a very, very long time John. I know you know better. Stop trying to confuse the newbies.
Only if you are Cogent / L3 (or Cogent / FT, or Cogent / Teleglobe, or Cogent / $NEXT-DEPEER). Any other time a network gets de-peered, the bits still flow.I do not see how one network can tell another: "You can't send me what my customers are requesting of you."
So I repeat, how can an eyeball network tell a content provider: "You can't send me what my customers are requesting of you."
The only way I can think to do that is to intentionally congest the path. (Which many eyeball networks actually do, now that I think about it.) But that might have an adverse affect on your customer growth.
I doubt they will succeed - at least in the long run, or even in the majority of cases. But stranger things have happened.If your business model is to provide flat-rate access, it is not _my_ responsibility to ensure your customers do not use more access than your flat-rate can compensate you to deliver.Agreed... I'm not defending the business model, only pointing out that some folks may find it easier to bill their "peers" than customers.
Just remember, turn-about it fair play. So they should be careful what they wish for.