North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Sprint peering policy
- From: Paul Vixie
- Date: Sat Jun 29 11:34:36 2002
> : when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention
> : has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not
> : been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not
> : stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers.
> Let's hope they don't decide to do that.
i won't take a position on this, other than that "dense peering, and high
path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability".
wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer ("citizen").
if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted:
1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life (& economy)
2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly)
3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly
4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect
so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by
some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here.
none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation"
currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing,
leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off
fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.