On a future of open settlement free peering

Richard Bennett richard at bennett.com
Tue Jul 29 23:24:13 UTC 2014


So when you said: "I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light" 
before the weight of government crashes down on them" you were positing 
an unlikely outcome? For  what purpose, trolling?

BTW, I'm not a lobbyist, but you already knew that.

RB

On 7/29/14, 4:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum




More information about the NANOG mailing list