North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions

  • From: David Barak
  • Date: Wed Nov 02 14:19:23 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=YlbfAVIq48VWr3J0BtsDtl4s3RQ7MkhlLR8gi0fIDnKGKwyjsE750qaseoNP4QYi3Ta9SnHpjbmWiNgIdWRnL/FrS1Ge9gFhp4Z6T8upYziyiUFGrIpSXbtKQ664qhavyGstkeYq9WreQwT77ZTNAa8o/Ixd5gLAe4MyMkzUl+Y= ;

--- Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:

> if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer
> and i go
> to <http://content.provider>, why should
> content.provider pay
> to give the sbc paying customer what they're already
> charged
> for?

There is one scenario where the content.provider is
paying the carrier as well - when the content.provider
is a direct customer of the carrier, rather than being
either a SFI-peer or a customer of an SFI-peer.

This of course goes back to the question of
depeering/transit/etc which we beat to death a couple
of weeks ago - many carriers want to get paid both by
the sources and sinks of traffic (it's certainly an
understandable, if unlikely, desire).  I would just
like to point out for the record that none of the
recent depeering battles have involved any RBOCs...

-David Barak

Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005