nanog mailing list archives
RE: peering charges?
From: "Danny Stroud" <dannystroud () msn com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 97 15:16:35 UT
Don't harangue me about it. Ask Wall Street, look at the numbers for the ISPs, read the paper regarding the latest AOL flap. This is not my sole opinion. I will not engage in a philosophical debate on this issue. Sorry, but the market is the judge. des ---------- From: Vadim Antonov Sent: Monday, January 27, 1997 2:27 PM To: avg () pluris com; Danny Stroud; madison () queber acsi net Cc: davec () ziplink net; nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud <dannystroud () msn com> wrote:
We, the operators, have a challenge to make the 'net an economically viable industry. Right now it is not, but we seem to be headed in the right direction. des
You may have tons of fun telling that this industry is not economically viable to (for example) Rick Adams. --vadim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: peering charges?, (continued)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Michael Dillon (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Sean Donelan (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Paul J. Zawada (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? David Whipple (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Tim Salo (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 29)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 29)
- RE: peering charges? Eric D. Madison (Jan 29)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 30)