Settlements, etc., etc.

Henry Linneweh linneweh at
Thu Aug 27 00:25:22 UTC 1998

To add to the discussion is the latest from IETF

 Source: Network World Australia) Network managers looking to include
details of traffic delivery in their SLAs with ISPs are in for some
good news.

Henry R. Linneweh

Derek Elder wrote:

> I really wanted to stay out of this one, but something that I remembered
> from a speech made by an FCC bigwig at ISPCON a couple years ago has
> pushed me over the edge.
> His (close enough) statement was "At the FCC, the words "regulation" and
> "Internet" are not allowed in the same sentence of a document."  Their
> word processors were (supposedly) setup as to not allow it.  He stated
> that the FCC intended to use new IP services (VoIP, etc) to help break
> up foreign communications monopolies.  That is why they were keeping
> their hands off.
> So the question that I pose is:  Do we actually think that if our greed
> or inability to find a good peering model, forces us into a "pay for
> what you use" model, the FCC won't change their minds very quickly and
> decide that they want their piece of the pie after all?
> Deciding who is more important - the sender or receiver - is worse than
> maddening.  It's impossible.  That's why caller pays in the Telco world
> and they have alot more infrastructure to track those things than we do.
> Unfortunatly, I think that this is a train out of control and keeping
> the regulators out at this point is impossible.
> Knowing GTE's history (i.e., a company that would never have survived
> without access charges), who's to say that the BBN movements are not a
> precisely calculated move to -force- regulators to step in?
> > Derek Elder
> > US Web Corporation
> > Senior Engineer
> > 212-548-7468
> > Pager - 888-232-5028
> > delder at
> >
> > A Strategic Partner for the
> > Information Age.
> >
> >


More information about the NANOG mailing list