Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

I am not on some sort of crusade; this is not a stable arrangement and
won't last. Benefits flow both ways; in time the costs will come to
more or less match the benefits. Not because I say yes or you say no
but because the market will adjust itself.

business. But don't give us this "Europe is subsidizing US
infrastructure" dreck.

Oh, lighten up.

As I said, my main point was that the Economist's model was seriously
flawed.

I am an American doing business in both the States and Europe, not a
socialism-loving American-flag-burning Limey. :wink:

I can see how the system currently works, and I know it's not going to last.

Of course, as long as there are more users of the Internet located
in the US, and more content sites in the US, and the interesting
applications located in the US, there will be a greater value
to the non-us IPs to drop lines in, and as our Asian friends have
pointed out it is often cheaper to drop lines to the West coast
of the US than to drop inter-asia links.
If companies like Global Sprintlink, Cable and Wireless, etc,
are going into non-US peering locations, then it is already
changing. However compared to the amount of Internet bandwidth
in the US, compared to elsewhere, I seriously doubt that there
is any kind of siginifcant subisidy to US users.

(Just because it costs non-US based ISPs more to play the
fully connected game, doesn't mean there is a signficant cost
difference, just a market imbalance.

2

>As I said, my main point was that the Economist's model was seriously
>flawed.
> ...
Of course, as long as there are more users of the Internet located
in the US, and more content sites in the US, and the interesting
applications located in the US, there will be a greater value
to the non-us IPs to drop lines in, and as our Asian friends have
pointed out it is often cheaper to drop lines to the West coast
of the US than to drop inter-asia links.

This is just another seriously flawed model.

If companies like Global Sprintlink, Cable and Wireless, etc,
are going into non-US peering locations, then it is already
changing.

Yes it is already changing. But as far as I can see, Global
SprintLink represents the old US-centric model: GSL is the
international arm of SprintLink and essentially sells bandwidth
into the States. C&W is setting itself up as a global backbone
provider.

           However compared to the amount of Internet bandwidth
in the US, compared to elsewhere, I seriously doubt that there
is any kind of siginifcant subisidy to US users.

I know it's hard to think about these things, but a T1 across the
Atlantic costs us 235 times as much as a T1 to MAE West. Comparing
Mbps is a joke.

(Just because it costs non-US based ISPs more to play the
fully connected game, doesn't mean there is a signficant cost
difference, just a market imbalance.

Yes 235:1 is a bit of a market imbalance; some might say that it
is a significant cost difference.

)