] > Or, possible some small providers buy a multi-megabit circuit from a
] > large provider who gives them transit. The small provider then connects
] > at a single NAP and picks up bilateral peering sessions with a bunch
] > of people there. The result is offloading traffic from their
] > "transit link", which stands a good chance of being priced as a
] > "burstable" link. (pay for what you use) That gives the small
] > provider an economic incentive to operate in this manner.
] Quite a few CIX members operate this way. The interesting question in my
] mind is whether the "big guys" (defaultless nets, for the purposes of this
] discussion) think that this represents unfair competition or not.
We've a defaultless net, but I'm not sure that I'm considered a
'Big Guy'. Hell, we only route 1% of the internet, but maybe if I
lost my aggregates I could be bigger 
The hidden metric that davec above doesn't consider is latency.
If I peer at a NAP, I forgo the latency my upstream 'multi-megabit
circuit' incurs.
This is a consideration, you know.
-alan