nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint peering policy
From: alex () yuriev com
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:12:49 -0400 (EDT)
I think this is putting the cart before the horse. We were getting upgraded bandwidth capabilities, fiber put in the ground, etc from traditional Telcos prior to the rise of the Internet; they were finding cheaper ways to run phone service around.
This is totally incorrect. Ask anyone who had been in this business from the beginning of nineties, not late nineties. Telcos, while upgrading their systems, happily pointed at the PUC filings and sold you DS1 that went two blocks for $700 per month, that being inside a city.
The rise of the Internet as a telecom bandwidth demand driver attracted the attention of investment bankers and capital, which then became somewhat of a set of complex feedback loops (capital going into all sorts of internet industries, infrastructure, etc, partly because it appeared to be good business and partly because of hype). The result was that speculation and hype drove overcapacity.
This again is incorrect. The rise of content attracted investment bankers.
Before anyone had invested serious money in any of the internet infrastructure companies, people were building out 10 megabit, T3 backbones and were talking to telco gear providers about what it would take to do 155 megabit and 622 megabit backbones and so on and so on.
This is again incorrect. The people that you are talking about were UUNET and MCI, and we are talking 1994.
It was clear to those of us in the late 80s and early 90s that if demand kept pulling, we needed to keep creating bandwidth.
There had not been demand in 80. Neither had there been demand in the beginning of 1990s.
But in no way can you claim that it took a terabuck in capital push to make it happen. Demand pull was fully operational and working just fine before ISPs started being snapped up by phone companies and visa versa, and the huge money came into play.
Yes I can. It did take terrabucks to get this industry rolling.
Hype might have been lower and growth somewhat slower, but I can easily see the set of people who were building out backbones with T-1s and the early fiber links having grown them up to networks capable of today's traffic.
Are you talking about Net99 here? Alex
Current thread:
- RE: Sprint peering policy, (continued)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Nigel Titley (Jul 02)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Lesher (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex (Jul 02)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Deepak Jain (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy E.B. Dreger (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- Message not available
- RE: Sprint peering policy Grant A. Kirkwood (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Giles Heron (Jul 02)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 02)