Re:

["Scott Granados" <scott () wworks net>]

I wonder if this isn't a way to slap cogent around for their lower price
points.  After all how much grumbling do we hear on various lists about $30
/ meg.  Seems there is more to this story because on the surface this makes
no sense.  Why would an eyeball provider remove itself from the content
source no matter what the ratio.  And said eyeball provider now pays for the
content, which they did not as much before.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ringdahl, Dwight (WebUseNet)" <ringdahl () usenetserver com>
To: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:17 PM


> > > Thing is if your connection is completely full one way, it'll effect
> > > traffic the other way too.
>
> My thoughts are Cogents primary customers are sites that are looking for
> very cheap bandwidth, which most likely is adult content. Therefore they
> would look more like a content provider than a transit provider.
>
> My question, being a content network, is how would AOL expect them to have
a
> balanced pipe? AOL is all eyeballs, and really doesn't have much content
> which is useful outside of their user base. Especially if you already peer
> with Time Warner in other sites.
>
> When ISP's peer I would have thought it is to prevent having to pay
transit
> companies like Level3 for the bandwidth. This leads me to believe there
> might be something more to this, like maybe the spam spewed from the adult
> sites. Just a guess, anyone have any hard data?
>
> Dwight