SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions

Wed Nov 2 10:45:02 UTC 2005

Any thoughts on this:

http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=16437

--- <snip>
The applicants committed, for a period of three years, to maintain
settlement-free peering arrangements with at least as many providers of
Internet backbone services as they did in combination on the Merger Closing
Dates.

The applicants committed for a period of two years to post their peering
policies on publicly accessible websites. During this two-year period, the
applicants will post any revisions to their peering policies on a timely
basis as they occur.
---- </snip>

Published SFI peering policies are nice, but the overlap in SFI peering
between each pair of merging carriers may require them to peer with
additional networks. For example, there is some overlap between SBC and AT&T
in regards to SFI peers. This might require the combined network to
interconnect with additional networks to MAINTAIN the overall number of SFI
peers. 

I guess its a good time to apply to 701 for SFI, although it appears the
number of slots are limited to some unknown (and probably low) number.
Gentlefolk, start your engines :)

Can anyone else think of regulatory restrictions previously placed on SFI
relationships in North America? I realize this is more like a consent decree
than true regulation, but its an interesting move by the regulators.

Regulation is generally a bad thing, but publishing SFI requirements - and
even SFI relationships - won't hurt anyone, IMHO.

-- 
Daniel Golding