William B. Norton wrote:
Three said that these transit prices were TOO LOW, in
one case they paid about double these numbers. It was
interesting that these three were a content company,
The really interesting question IMHO is this: does said content company
also peers, or just buys transit? I read in Bill Norton's papers that a
content company is a good candidate to peer with large tier-2s.
And, an even more interesting question is: if said content company does
peer, what kind of price would they be available to negotiate with their
transit if they stopped peering and stick to transit-only?
Given the adjustment, I thought you might be interested
in how the U.S. transit prices compare against a handful
of other Peering Ecosystems:
The Cost of Internet Transit in..
Commit AU SG JP HK USA
1 Mbps $720 $625 $490 $185 $125
10 Mbps $410 $350 $150 $100 $80
100 Mbps $325 $210 $110 $80 $45
1000 Mbps $305 $115 $50 $50 $30
Someone mentioned that this was comparing apples to oranges. Indeed it
is, but nevertheless remains extremely interesting as related to a
thread we had earlier about regional differences in P2P. The way I see
things, we are greatly unequal depending on where we live. However, I
have theorized the following thoughts that I would like to run by the
<me puts the asbestos suit on>
No matter where you leave, the deal you get as a hard-core swapper
(remember, we're talking about P2P now) is about what it costs to buy or
build transit in bulk. The operator/provider makes no profit out of
hardcore swappers, just tries not to loose money.
In other words: in Australia, an unlimited and unmetered megabit
residential link will cost hundreds of dollars, which is about the
transit cost. In California, I pay $36.99/mo for 2.5 mpbs unlimited
unmetered, which is also about the transit cost.
</me puts the asbestos suit on>
one can pick up a used 7500 series router equipment
now for about $9K ! The configuration was with an OC-3,
and FastE for peering, for about 25% of the new cost
Sounds like a lot of money to me for a 7500; if this is the eBay cost
only it's more around $3.5k I would say. For $9k one could get a 12008.
OTOH if it includes re-licensing and some support it sounds about right.
Deepak Jain wrote:
Other than packet buffer depths and some theoretical ACL
limits, is there any reason why a 7600 network would be
worse than a 12000 built one?
<me owns a few Cisco shares>
There is one: Cisco wants you to buy 12000s. Don't expect them to make
it easy to run the same network on 7600s
</me owns a few Cisco shares>
That being said, what you mention is probably why you find 12000s for
peanuts on eBay.....
Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
and I honestly do not believe that every network is
selling below cost.
No, but there are enough to do it that the other ones are not too far
Economics 101: low prices mean there is more supply than demand, which
also means that either the demand has to grow or the supply diminish. A
common strategy is to sell at loss to capture a better/significant
market share, which will ensure that the taxpayer and shareholders will
pay the bankruptcy bill, as the disruptions caused by disappearance of a
large fish are even more costly.