On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jason Lixfeld <ja...@lixfeld.ca> wrote: > > On 2011-12-12, at 4:22 PM, Simon Lockhart <si...@slimey.org> wrote: > >> I guess most (i.e. those >> which aren't Akamai) are more concerned with making money than with >> delivering >> a good service to the end user. > > Really? I always thought that higher profits and buying transit were > mutually exclusive relative to higher profits and openly peering. > > So what you are saying is that one stands to make more by paying upstreams > for bit swapping? How's that work? > > If the argument is that the opex required for maintaining peering > relationships is too expensive relative to the direct and indirect cost of > buying bandwidth, I love to be edumacated on how that math actually works > because it makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm somewhat assuming you're trolling here. :/ but just in case... the lost revenue from peering with someone when you could be charging them transit prices is the tradeoff being referred to here; Level3 isn't in the business of paying upstreams for bandwidth. (well, other than comcast, but that's a different thread entirely. And yes, I suppose that would be me trolling. Bad Matt!) Matt
