Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
bill at herrin.us
Mon Sep 13 17:29:42 UTC 2010
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Brian Johnson <bjohnson at drtel.com> wrote:
>>The network could deliver "cost-reimbursable" peering, in which any
>>service provider above a particular size is by regulation compelled to
>>provide peering at the cost of the basic connection in at least one
>>location in each state in which they operate Internet infrastructure.
>>As a matter of simple fairness, someone else has already paid them to
>>move the packets. Why should you have to pay them more than the cost
>>of the port?
> So for clarity... who pays for the peering?
Whichever party forces the other to accept peering under the regs.
Of course, that's not what would happen. People being people, what
would happen is that having been forced that close to balance, most of
the companies would go ahead and offer settlement free peering to
whoever showed up at locations where they peer with anyone else.
Ethernet ports are relatively cheap, even on big iron, and their
"generosity" positions them at the next regulatory challenge to say,
"See, fairness doesn't require us to unbundle our fiber services
because we already have open third-party access here."
And unlike open peering, unbundling really is expensive and difficult.
>>A small number of transit-frees would resent it, but it would damage
>>them only in that it levels the playing field for small businesses,
>>enhancing the small businesses' capabilities without enhancing their
> HUH? Inanimate objects (transit-frees) do not have the ability to
> Providers being forced to do something do not resent it (unless they are
> personally Invested), but they do have to recover their costs and as
> such would have to raise rates given nothing else changes.
By stating "resent," I suppose I'm personifying a process in which a
large company warns of dire consequences for the consumer should it be
forced to accept reasonable regulation after which the consequences
either don't materialize at all or show up in some other way
significantly less destructive than the obstructed behavior.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the NANOG