Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering policy

Sat Jun 29 18:14:16 UTC 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 
>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.

-- 
========================================================
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609)
882-2572 (phone & fax) cook at cookreport.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
========================================================