I can think of one good reason:
Not everyone you might want to peer with on the West Coast
is at the PAIX.
that brings up another question i've meant to ask. what are the
larger provider's reasons (if anyone cares to comment) for not
peering at paix? mci? sprint? is it just the typical feeling that
more public peering is not necessarily a good thing, or something
Unlike a network-only based NAP, the PAIX provides a data center within
which large providers can "privately peer" rather than run through the
GIGAswitch. For some providers, extending their backbone into the PAIX
pays off because they can then sell transit from within the facility to
other providers, or even use it as a hub site (or POP). What we have found
is that the large providers such as MCI and Sprint have traditionally
preferred a circuit-based connection to their transit and private peer
customers rather than a colocate environment; Perhaps they do not feel
the business of the current PAIX customers would be sufficient to offset
the costs of extending their backbone and the physical equipment.
The interesting element to all of this is many of our customers have
outright said to us that IF Sprint and MCI were to put an Internet
backbone presence within the facility, they would buy transit from them
here (we could practically guarantee them customers). Also, many of
our national and international customers would immediately purchase
redundant carrier circuits through MCI and Sprint if they were to locate
fiber muxes here as well (rather than terminate through other local loop
providers). I realize these are two completely separate issues.
On a side note, AT&T has been approaching us from within business units
interested in making money by placing a presence here, though I believe
there is great deal of internal communication which has to happen before
it manifests itself in a fiber mux or a backbone presence.