On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > > > as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are > > eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot > > of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. > > I agree with Randy, but will go one further. > > Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes > your competitors to compete in your home market. > > You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements? You go into the > eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one. > > Google Fiber, anyone? > > Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all the > products I sell" is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys > use ratio.
At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and the reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile infrastructure. -dorian
