Let’s first model the traditional Content Providers.

Definition: Content Providers are all companies that operate an Internet Service but do not sell transit within the Peering Ecosystem.

Content players have always purchased transit to deliver their content to the end-users on the Internet.  Therefore, their role and behavior in the Peering Ecosystem is similar to the Tier 2 ISPs with the exceptions that most Content Players:

•do not sell transit

•focus on content creation and do not generally want to operate a network.

•do not have the staff or expertise to even examine the peering option, much less configure routers, or build and manage peering relationships.

Content Provider Model. The Content Provider model is a simple model. On the bottom of the model is content connected to the Internet via one or more transit (upstream) connections.

There are two varieties of Content Provider:

1) Traditional Content Players include companies like Amazon.com, eBay, and Staples.com. Enterprises include Avon.com, Hertz, Agilent, and General Electric.

2) Large Scale Network Savvy Content Providers are the group of Content Providers that have adopted Peering as a strategy for lowering traffic expenses, increasing their ability to control and improve the end-user experience. The larger ones are only distinguishable from Tier 2 ISPs in that they do not sell transit to others. Examples are Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, Sony Online, and VideoBox.

Traditional Content Providers Relationship with the other Players. The Traditional Content Providers generally see the ISPs as vendors, and select vendors along widely varying parameters. They may not have the networking staff or expertise to get into peering, or may not see it as a strategic imperative.

Large Scale Network Savvy Content Providers

Traditional Content Providers adopt a No Peering inclination, arguing that they focus on the content creation, that transit is inexpensive, and they just assume send their traffic to the experts and get Service Level Agreements.

Large Scale Network Savvy Content Providers have similar motivations to peer with Regional Tier 2 ISPs:

1.Reduce Transit Costs. By directly peering with willing players, traffic is exchanged directly with the peer, and typically is done so settlement-free. This peering traffic therefore reduces the load on and therefore the cost of transit. Peering is one way to reduce transit fees.

2.Improve Performance. Traffic that flows directly between players has lower latency than traffic that first traverses a transit providers network before being handed off to the peer.

3. 3.Have Greater Control over Routing. Some prefer to have tight control over the path and performance of the traffic. If a poor performing path is preferred by the routing protocols, an alternative path can be configured.
   

4. 4.End-User Experience. The Large Scale Network Savvy Content Croviders cited end-user experience as the number one reason to peer. Christian Nielsen (Microsoft) stated at the Equinix Peering Forum in Sydney that the amount of money peering saved Microsoft for example was significant to most people, but relatively inconsequential to the overall operations costs of their web properties. Indeed, the end-user experience was chief among their motivations to build out a global infrastructure and peer openly around the world.
   

Internal customers

Internet Region

P

P

P

Large Scale Network Savvy Content Providers have adopted an Open Peering inclination, and generally will peer with anyone. They are affectionately referred to in the Peering Community as “Peering Sluts.”

Content Providers Relationship with Each Other. Generally speaking, there is no relationship between the content providers in the Peering Ecosystem. They either compete with each other (so don’t communicate) or they have no traffic to exchange with each other. There are two exceptions that came out in the research: some e-mail providers exchange e-mail freely and directly, and some content providers interact using extranets in supply chain integration forms. None of these however has been directly seen to influence the peering ecosystem.

Content Providers relationship with Tier 2 ISPs. While the Traditional Content Providers saw the Regional Tier 2 ISPs as vendors, the Large Scale Network Savvy Content Provider need to insist that they will never purchase transit from tthe Tier 2 ISPs in order to be able to enter into peering discussions. Otherwise, they appear to be a transit customer prospect and the conversation will be diverted in this direction.

Large Scale Network Savvy Content Providers will behave in a similar fashion to Tier 2 ISPs, participating in Peering Fora, openly seeking potential peers, evangelizing and leading peering activities, etc. It has proven to be far easier to be recognized in the peering community as a recognized contributor and peering representative, than to be an unknown peering person and chase down peering prospects.