On a future of open settlement free peering

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Tue Jul 29 23:12:19 UTC 2014


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:
> It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if you
> prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely outcome
> of the FCC's net neutrality expedition.

I don't think an FCC ban on paid peering is a plausible outcome this
go-around. The question, as I understand it, is reclassification of
broadband. If they actually go for reclassification, then you guys are
screwed. Paid peering would be the least of the dominoes to fall in
the follow-on rulemaking which would be necessary as a result of
reclassification.

Reclassification might bring a serious discussion of L1/L2 structural
separation to the table. It wouldn't be the FCC's first foray into
structural separation and as far as I know the laws which allow are
still on the books.

If I was one of the eyeball network lobbyists, I'd be begging the FCC
to let me try open peering and give it a chance to achieve the
commission's public policy objectives WITHOUT reclassification.

But then I guess that's why I'm not a telecom-paid lobbyist, eh? ;)

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?


More information about the NANOG mailing list