cybermud
join:2000-08-25
Chicago, IL
| reply to powerspec88
Re: Thank god
And thats why Cogent feels they shouldn't have to pay Sprint. Enough Sprint customers need to be able to get to Cogent. And Sprint is not going to pay Level3 or AT&T or anyone else for transit to Cogent as it would weaken their negotiating power.
--
www.donwest.org - Get in on it, Gang! |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| said by cybermud  :And Sprint is not going to pay Level3 or AT&T or anyone else for transit to Cogent as it would weaken their negotiating power. Sprint is a Tier1 provider based on agreements and binding legal contracts with the other carriers to establish settlement free peering. Cogent is trying to claim to be a tier1 carrier simply by not paying for transit, even though they don't have contracts in place to stipulate such. |
|
dmadole
join:2003-12-30
New London, CT
| reply to cybermud
Cybermud, you are the only one here I see who gets it.
Sprint is a dinosaur and they were too hung up in their old equal-traffic mentality. The idea that the peering was unfair because Cogent sent them more traffic than they sent Cogent was silly. Cogent doesn't just decide to randomly send them traffic, they send it because subscribers on the Sprint side request content. It's Sprint's customers that create traffic from Cogent.
I think Sprint screwed up on this, because they apparently forgot that they have an awful lot of customers, including all Sprint wireless subscribers, some federal agencies, and some big companies like Pfizer, who are single-homed to them and were probably hurt more than Cogent customers were.
I can almost imagine the internal discussions at Sprint between the Sprint Wireless division and the Sprint Internet division. I bet the wireless side was not too happy. Competitive market like that does not need to be upsetting it's customers that way.
So forget about traffic; who actually get the most benefit from the peering arrangement? I think it just might be Sprint, or maybe it's equal. And I think that's what Cogent has been saying all along.
Sprint tried to bully Cogent around, and Cogent called their bluff. As a Cogent customer, I am a little surprised how little this affected me. Sprint is not the force they seem to think they are. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | dmadole.. you do not get it at all. EPIC FAIL. |
|
skuv
@rr.com
| reply to espaeth
Except that it is NOT transit that Cogent was getting from Sprint. Cogent doesn't get transit from anyone, paid or not.
Transit means you are transiting one network to get to the other. The Sprint connection for Cogent was to only get to Sprint and its single-homed customers.
If Cogent had transit, there would have been no issue with getting between Sprint and Cogent, because they would have transited another network to get there. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Prior to the trial of SFI between Cogent and Sprint, Cogent was paying NTT/Verio for transit to get to Sprintlink prefixes.
Once Cogent entered into the SFI trial with Sprint, they ended their agreement with NTT. The issue is that the trial failed to produce traffic levels that BOTH PARTIES agreed to when they signed the contract.
Now it's just up to Cogent to man up and pay for peering, or seek transit through someone else. |
|
dmadole
join:2003-12-30
New London, CT | reply to brad
Ooh, witty response. Wish I had thought of first. You really made your case. |
|
