Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement
peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have
traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to
carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get.
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to
subsidies from large peers to small.
That already was beaten to death. However, i repeat the argument:
Customer A ---[POP] ------------- 1000 miles -----------[POP]
Customer B ------[POP]-1 mile-[POP]
When customers A and B talk Big Provider pays to get them through
1000 miles. Small Provider pays for 1 mile.
Note that i didn't even talk about less measurabe, but way too
more important things like hosting of information suppliers.
Say, Big Provider connects 1000 web sites; Small Provider hosts
1 site -- benefit from peering in terms of Web site diversity to
the Big Provider's customers is 0.1%. To Small Provider's
customers the benefit of peering is 99.9%.
Zero-settlements work only when peers are of comparable size.
Any attempt to extort pressure to force it upon anyone simply
causes large folks to flee.