RE: Sprint peering policy

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

I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
through their current peers.

The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peering, proves
that peering has no relation to financial difficulties (in my mind, at
least)
--Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Daniel Golding
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:27 PM
To: Richard Irving
Cc: Paul Vixie; nanog () merit edu
Subject: RE: Sprint peering policy



What is the connection between unregulated peering and the financial
difficulties we have seen?

The problems have been caused by:

- Bad business models

- Greed

- Corporate officers who have shirked their fudiciary responsibilities
to the stockholders

If you can somehow tie peering into this, please be my guest, but it
would be a bit of a stretch.

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of

> Richard Irving
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:15 PM
> To: Daniel Golding
> Cc: Paul Vixie; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
>
>
>
> Daniel Golding wrote:
> > A vague sense of unfairness or unhappyness is the worst of reasons 
> > to regulate an industry.
> >
> > - Daniel Golding
>
>   How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded 
> fraud/bankruptcies in American History ?