Re: Sprint peering policy

[Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>]

Deepak Jain wrote:
> -----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
>
>   How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded
> fraud/bankruptcies in American History ?
>
> ---
>
> Why would bankruptcies be a good reason to introduce regulation into peering
> or the Internet business?

  To prevent Fraud/ Anti competitive practices ? 

 Remember the formula, peer until the customer grows... 
then pull back peering and demand more money, thus
causing a financial disaster in what had previously been
a financially stable company.......

  Then acquire them when they bankruptcy.

 Repeat as needed, until PEER == NULL.

 Then, when your company has gotten in over -it's- head,
from too rapid a growth factor, and too much acquisition of debt of absorbed companies,
withdraw as much money as you can.... and go under, sticking it to the American Public.

 Something or Someone has to break that cycle of pain.

So, someone said tie peering to the bankrupcty ?

See above.

 BTW, double dipping did -not- prove to be successful at offsetting
this "acquisition debt", so that method should be stopped, eh ?

 Most people would call it Anti-competitive practices, don't you think ?

 Remember: "There can only be ONE!"

> These bankruptcies have not disrupted Internet
> service  particularly... 

   Only because Judges intervened to keep them open 
until an alternative could be found. 

My and Your TAX money at work. Thanks a lot.

 And lets not forget, WorldCom has yet to complete it's cycle......

> Further, by forcing companies already in financial
> jeopardy to start peering, I don't think you will be increasing stability at
> all.

 Maybe they wouldn't BE in financial jeopardy if they traded peering
traffic for -=free=-, the way the internet was originally
designed.

 The ramifications are NOT simple, they are complex and interrelated..

 Like I said, Allen Greenspan, Bernie wasn't.

 Don't forget, A large number of these companies went down trying to create a net
large enough to peer with Tier 1's.... when they shouldn't
have needed that large a network, in the first place.

 By then the damage is done, the debt has been created, 
 acquisition just adds into the cascade effect. 

> If these companies go away, their customers will need to be acquired or
> transitioned to more stable players. Either way, the idea of peering with
> them is moot.

  Why ? You still haven't answered that basic question:

= "Now, someone explain how an internet provider convinced congress that
=it didn't really have to carry its own -internet customers- packet from one 
=side of its -=own=- network to the other side, unless -=both=-  
=parties paid it money ?"

 The argument should be who is paying for the wire, and does the bandwidth
cost justify the -=port=-, not who will you -=peer=- with....eh ?

> I shudder to think what working with France Telecom will be like if it gets
> renationalized.

  We weren't discussing renationalization, just regulation.

> Deepak Jain
> AiNET