The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
jra at baylink.com
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
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.
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
More information about the NANOG