North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprintpeering policy
- From: Gordon Cook
- Date: Sat Jun 29 14:17:22 2002
Regarding Pauls' excellent comment.
During the buildout phase 1995 - 1999 I understand very well the
reasons for no regulation of interconnection.
Successful growth was happening too fast for the Fed's to second
guess by regulating interconnect the process of which would slow the
build out down and do economic harm.
We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most
of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going
there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the
build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind
ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why?
All the TIER 1s (6 were mentioned in an earlier comment) are in
SERIOUS economic trouble. Their IP networks certainly qualify as
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. EBONE in a matter of days went from
'viable" to life support. After WorldCom's scandal this week does
anyone REALLY think a similar UGLY surprise cannot happen here?
As PAUL points out, this is now an industry that is critical to
keeping economic activity flowing smoothly, yet Washington is taking
more and more of a hands off course.
Where is it possible to gain any reliable data on which networks are
lit with what equipment and offering how many actual lambdas? Or
even how many fibers in a given back bone are actually lit? We know
there is huge unused capacity, yet because there are no reporting
requirements as to what networks are lit to what capacity, we very
likely don't know whether the fiber in the ground is being used to
one per cent of its potential or 10% or even 20%. Moreover we do not
know the extent to which optical bandwidth is growing? Not knowing
this, how can anyone make any intelligent economic or policy or
investment decisions? The LECs must tell the FCC numbers of lines in
use and numbers of access minutes. The IP industry must tell the FCC
essentially nothing. Why shoud such policy continue?
Does the borg still exist? do big players at least still share this
data with each other?
Will Congress have to pass a law before the FCC can demand data?
as Vixie said:
"we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind."
Paul Vixie said something important when he commented 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
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.
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609)
882-2572 (phone & fax) email@example.com Subscription info &
prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of
content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml
Here Comes Asset Based Telecom
A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml