In view of the difference, I would suggest that the web farms have a
case that UUnet should pay _them_ for the priveledge of accessing their
content! Anytime UUnet asks for a fee for peering, just tell them that
you really consider them unequal, and that they should pay YOU!
This brings up a really interesting point. The premise stated here is
that uunet's customers are accessing farm.com's servers. If farm.com's
servers were unreachable because UUNET refused to allow traffic to
that site (directly or indirectly) uunet would suffer. However, the
reverse perspective must also be considered. farm.com is providing a
service for its cusomters. if farm.com cannot be reached from uunet,
farm.com loses the revenue that uunet's customer's generate. So uunet
receives complaints from its customers that they can't access farm.com
and farm.com receives complaints that uunet can't access farm.com. Who
is responsible for the fix? Ultimately, I think farm.com would have to
give in to keep customers from moving services to a "better connected"
provider.