if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i
place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc
to hold up her end of the conversation?
Historically, aunt tillie's residential telephone line was
subsidized by charging more for business lines. When you called
aunt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Barak
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:18 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
snip
like to point out for the record that none of the
recent
Any thoughts on this:
http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=16437
--- snip
The applicants committed, for a period of three years, to maintain
settlement-free peering arrangements with at least as many providers of
Internet backbone services as they did in
the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public
statements on the use of his wires by google and the like.
randy
On Nov 2, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote:the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent publicstatements on the use of his wires by google and the like.You can pretty much s/the sbc/rboc/g in this context. Leadership seems to believe that because those who conduct business over
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i
place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc
to hold up her end of the conversation?
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer and i go
to http://content.provider, why should content.provider pay
to give the
On 11/2/05 2:04 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public
statements on the use of his wires by google and the like.
randy
For the curious on the list...
How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i
place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc
to hold up her end of the conversation?
No, but they pay their local carrier. And somewhere there's an IXC
in the middle.
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
They ARE using your pipes right now, and they AREN'T paying you
money. The
funny thing is that your customers ARE paying you money for access
to Google
and Yahoo. Broadband gets a lot less compelling without content, so
don't
push it.
--- Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer
and i go
to http://content.provider, why should
content.provider pay
to give the sbc paying customer what they're already
charged
for?
There is one scenario where the content.provider is
paying
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:04:52AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public
statements on the use of his wires by google and the like.
Come on, you didn't see that coming? I'd wager money that right now,
somewhere at SBC, there are two
There is one scenario where the content.provider is
paying the carrier as well - when the content.provider
is a direct customer of the carrier, rather than being
either a SFI-peer or a customer of an SFI-peer.
This of course goes back to the question of
depeering/transit/etc which we beat to
12 matches
Mail list logo
