Circa 2003, here is Level 3's proposal:

With the rapid growth of Internet traffic, larger retail ISPs are faced with the challenge of efficiently handling IP traffic increases. These companies are [re-]evaluating the traditional Internet peering model as a way of achieving a leading cost structure and higher level of quality.

When taken to the extreme, the traditional Internet peering model results in reverse economies of scale that are detrimental to the industry as a whole.

Our alternative, advanced peering, leverages the Martini Draft implementation of MPLS. It allows providers to avoid the cost and operational implications of the traditional model. The result is a more eloquent and cost-efficient option for Internet interconnection.

Of the US carriers, only AT&T, Level 3 and Sprint do not face the prospect of bankruptcy from the US intercity fiber business. Most of the remaining companies have completely abandoned their intercity fiber business. A select few might re-emerge from bankruptcy and perhaps become viable. Most will not.

"Facilities-based providers" convinced themselves that their network engineering and operational capabilities would enable them to achieve a higher level of service quality.

Why was so much money invested in such a large number of fiber-based business plans? While the decisions of the late 1990s cannot be reversed, the industry can learn from them.

Advanced peering is much more efficient than traditional peering arrangements because it minimizes cost replication.

While the industry continues to change rapidly, cash flow performance will decide who will survive and who will prosper.

Many lessons are being learned from the telecom meltdown. The industry needs to be honest about when it is appropriate to build and operate vs. when it makes more sense to leverage someone else's investment and core competency. And, it needs to be creative in finding solutions that produce win-win results.

She lays bare all of the problems with SKA peering, but she is still in denial about CapEx problems -- and I'm not talking about the fiber. Namely, what can be done with all of the legacy equipment, including all of this ATM crap? I know, let's build a "converged" network! Apparently the two sides of her "win-win" equation are data and voice.

Some confusion remains with regard to peering. There is no mention here of a more complex settlement model, for example.