nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:59:47 -0500
On 2016-06-18 12:54, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Kuhnke wrote:What Randy just wrote is exactly the point I was trying to make in my last email. Some real estate facility owners/managers have got into the mistaken mindset that they can get the greatest value and the most monthly revenue from the square-footage of their building by charging additional MRC XCfees to the tenants of the building.There are some VERY sucessful companies that would strongly disagree with you.When in fact the opposite is true, and we need a concerted community effort to lobby every IX real estate owner with this fact: Your real estate willbe MORE valuable and will attract a greater critical mass of carriers,eyeball networks, CDNs, huge hosting providers/colo/VM, etc if you make thecrossconnects free.But then why would we want to do that? If you are correct and doing so would raise the value of the real esatate, doesn't that mean that the building managers would be able to charge operators a whole lot more than they are able to today, in aggregate?
If the price of XC drops to ~zero, then tenants are going to do a lot more of it and thereby get more value from the IX, which means people will be _willing_ to pay more for that real estate, rather than complaining about XC price-gouging. It's as much perception as it is math.
OTOH, if prices climb to unreasonable levels, then more space will (eventually) be made available, e.g. by pushing non-IX tenants out of the building, by laying ample dark fiber to a nearby building for expansion (but still ~free XC) or by a competitor appearing.
The problems come with expansion that is _not_ nearby, i.e. XC can no longer be ~free, yet the operator still tries to pretend it's a single facility. There are plenty of folks in the business of transporting bits over long distances; IMHO, an IX shouldn't be one of them.
S -- Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Current thread:
- AW: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?, (continued)
- AW: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Jürgen Jaritsch (Jun 20)
- Re: AW: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Thomas Mangin (Jun 20)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 20)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? A . L . M . Buxey (Jun 20)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Tim Jackson (Jun 20)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Randy Bush (Jun 17)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Eric Kuhnke (Jun 17)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Brandon Ross (Jun 18)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Stephen Sprunk (Jun 26)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Seth Mattinen (Jun 17)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Pete Mundy (Jun 18)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Mark Tinka (Jun 19)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Zbyněk Pospíchal (Jun 16)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Niels Bakker (Jun 16)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Randy Bush (Jun 16)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Niels Bakker (Jun 16)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Adam Rothschild (Jun 16)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Phil Rosenthal (Jun 16)
- Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Eric Kuhnke (Jun 16)