On 2016-06-18 12:54, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
What Randy just wrote is exactly the point I was trying to make in my
last
email. Some real estate facility owners/managers have got into the
mistaken
mindset that they can get the greatest value and the most monthly
revenue
from the square-footage of their building by charging additional MRC
XC
fees to the tenants of the building.
There are some VERY sucessful companies that would strongly disagree
with you.
When in fact the opposite is true, and we need a concerted community
effort
to lobby every IX real estate owner with this fact: Your real estate
will
be MORE valuable and will attract a greater critical mass of carriers,
eyeball networks, CDNs, huge hosting providers/colo/VM, etc if you
make the
crossconnects free.
But then why would we want to do that? If you are correct and doing
so would raise the value of the real esatate, doesn't that mean that
the building managers would be able to charge operators a whole lot
more than they are able to today, in aggregate?
If the price of XC drops to ~zero, then tenants are going to do a lot
more of it and thereby get more value from the IX, which means people
will be _willing_ to pay more for that real estate, rather than
complaining about XC price-gouging. It's as much perception as it is
math.
OTOH, if prices climb to unreasonable levels, then more space will
(eventually) be made available, e.g. by pushing non-IX tenants out of
the building, by laying ample dark fiber to a nearby building for
expansion (but still ~free XC) or by a competitor appearing.
The problems come with expansion that is _not_ nearby, i.e. XC can no
longer be ~free, yet the operator still tries to pretend it's a single
facility. There are plenty of folks in the business of transporting
bits over long distances; IMHO, an IX shouldn't be one of them.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
