Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>]

On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:

> as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.

I agree with Randy, but will go one further.

Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes your competitors to compete in your home 
market.

You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements?  You go into the eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an 
eyeball provider, or creating one.

Google Fiber, anyone?

Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all the products I sell" is a really dumb peering 
policy, but that's how the big guys use ratio.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail