RE: Sprint peering policy

["Phil Rosenthal" <pr () isprime com>]

But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
no?

--Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
David Schwartz
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:45 PM
To: vgill () vijaygill com; Mike Leber
Cc: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy





On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
> Mike Leber <mleber () he net> writes:
>
> > Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by

> > revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
>
> A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
>
> Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by 
> interconnecting with each other?
>
> If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X and 
> Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal value by 
> interconnecting with the other, than that party usually balks.

        This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much
value Y gets 
out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should
charge 
hungrier people more for a Whopper.

        DS