Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit

[Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>]

On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, "Gary Hale" <ghale () globalinternetworking com> 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:michel () arneill-py sacramento ca us]
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM
> To: Gordon Cook; nanog () merit edu
> 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