On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote: > >Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by >>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage. > >A good proxy for the above is to ask the question: > >Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by >interconnecting with each other? > >If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X >and Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal >value by interconnecting with the other, than that party usually >balks. This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much value Y gets out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should charge hungrier people more for a Whopper. DS
- Re: Valid ip address ? Joe Provo
- Re: Valid ip address ? E.B. Dreger
- Re: Valid ip address ? Stephen Griffin
- Re: Valid ip address ? JothirLatha Jaganathan
- Re: Vixie puts his finger squarely on ... Paul Vixie
- Re:fundamentalist's opinion-- Vixie-- Re: ... jnelson
- RE: Sprint peering policy Daniel Golding
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Luyer
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving
- Re: Sprint peering policy Rizzo Frank
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex
- RE: Sprint peering policy Paul A Flores
- RE: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz
- Game Theory (was: RE: Sprint peering p... Scott A Crosby
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal
- RE: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz
- RE: Sprint peering policy Daniel Golding
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving
- RE: Sprint peering policy Daniel Golding