InterNAP.
Personally I think the whole "tier 1" craze is overrated. I'd rather have
multiple good paths to my destination, and the ability to divert traffic
elsewhere in the event of a problem. It can cost a lot of time and money
to get all the peering you need in all locations (or at least enough to
keep from bouncing traffic across the country because thats where your
peer is, or thats where your private peer is, etc). Then again it does
solve the problem of path selection by making it a non-issue, there is
only one path.
> played the "tier 2 and proud" card from a marketing standpoint. I can
We admit it, as a regional ISP it's ridiculous to admit otherwise
and it makes my competitors look like lying fools. 
InterNAP.
I'd actually specifically left them out, since even Tier 2 implies some
sort of backbone, at least in my book, and since they don't get any
points by calling themselves "tier 0". You might as well call band-x a
tier 2 provider if Internap fits the definition.
However, someone pointed out that Savvis was pushing the "tier 2 and
loving it" strategy pretty hard.
Personally I think the whole "tier 1" craze is overrated. I'd rather have
multiple good paths to my destination, and the ability to divert traffic
elsewhere in the event of a problem. It can cost a lot of time and money
Amen to that. You only need to look as far as CW and PSI to see the
faults in a transit-free environment. One business relationship on the
rocks can destroy your full view of a routing table.
However, from the position of a Tier 2, you can aggressively pursue both
private and public peers and rest easy knowing that a dispute on the
business side won't destroy your connectivity, just increase load on your
transit.
-travis
Personally I think the whole "tier 1" craze is overrated.
So, in the words of someone else, it's not size that counts,
it's what you do with it? :->