Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

[Tore Anderson <tore () linpro no>]

* Stephen Sprunk

> What it all comes down to is that the majority of eyeballs are on
> "residential" connections that are relatively expensive to provide
> but for which are sold at a relatively low price (often 1/10th as
> much per megabit of capacity).  Those eyeball ISPs cannot or will not
> charge their customers the full cost of "receiving" traffic so they
> want money from the more profitable content ISPs "sending" the
> traffic to offset their losses.

Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow 
between those two ISPs _anyway_.  Therefore, in many cases the only 
ones to profit from them not reaching a peering agreement 
(settlement-free or not) is their upstream(s), who is probably 
delighted to be able to charge them both for the transit traffic.

Regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson