nanog mailing list archives
Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:41:34 GMT
I choose to view this as ineffectual railing against the seemingly inevitable subordination of bit transport to compelling content.
I thought he is suggesting they are going to disconnect from the Internet and run their own private net which is fine but some customers may go elsewhere
They ARE using your pipes right now, and they AREN'T paying you money. The funny thing is that your customers ARE paying you money for access to Google and Yahoo. Broadband gets a lot less compelling without content, so don't push it.
We provide extra broadband content to ISPs with a SFI to us, we choose not to provide that to the general Internet as the cost is too high. There is also content that ISPs pay us to provide. Plenty of choice in what he can procure for the pleasure of his customers though I'm not happy with the ongoing attempted balkanisation of the Internet brandon
Current thread:
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions, (continued)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Christian Kuhtz (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Christian Kuhtz (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions David Barak (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Deepak Jain (Nov 02)
- RE: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Wayne Gustavus (nanog) (Nov 03)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Sean Donelan (Nov 03)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Christian Kuhtz (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Daniel Golding (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Christian Kuhtz (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Richard A Steenbergen (Nov 02)