The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Sun Apr 27 22:18:04 UTC 2014

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert at stargate.ca>

> I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
> been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
> links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering
> was happening at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that
> point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own
> capacity to the peering points and call it even. No?

And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
traffic moving.

The answer is "at the instance of the eyeball's customers".

So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274