Boasting is fine until economic realities start to affect your
bottom line. I always held to the opinion that stratification of
Internet is inevitable.

I agree one way to improve the bottom line is one-way settlements.
But, if you want to charge to use your facilities, don't be surprised
to see a toll booth when you try to use my facilities. On the other
hand, if you want free access to my network, I expect a reciprocal
agreement for access to your network. I'd rather avoid Mr. Doran's
vision of which provider can out last their screaming customers longer.

At least when ANS tried this last time, they offered to compensate
some of the mid-level networks for some of the investment made in
local and regional networks.

This is the key idea that UUNet seems to have missed; free access,
or pay access, must go both ways. UUNet seeks to charge for access
by other providers to UUNet's customers without being charged for
its customers access to the other providers customers.

There are elements of sensible business planning in why this is
happening ... the very big providers have to pay for nationwide
T3 networks to run traffic around the country that smaller providers
don't, and that hurts the big ones in comparason. It is somewhat
unfair to put the whole burden of those big backbones on big carriers
and the big carriers customers. On the other hand, if a midsized ISP
shows up at several peering points, with at least one in each major
region of the country, so bigger ISPs don't have to do all the countrywide
backhauling for the smaller ISP, then that justification fails completely.

What is left, once a smaller ISP does that, is simply UUNet being bigger
and wanting more, and doing so in a hostile manner towards smaller ISPs
without good economic justification could be construed as antitrust
violations as well as other problems.

-george william herbert
Speaking only for myself, I don't work for CRL