The current structures give a huge advantage to US and European providers. The rest of the world was essentialy allowed to connect up to the Internet provided that they paid the cost. As a result the settlements tend to reflect precedent rather than actual benefit to the parties.
ITU-T is not an illogical place to take that type of complaint, it surely isn't an IETF/ISOC/ICANN issue. But as usual it is rather easier to throw up a smokescreen and suggest that this is a control/censorship issue rather than admit that there might be a basic fairness issue. 2009/12/18 Patrik Fältström <[email protected]>: > > On 18 dec 2009, at 17.19, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> What's so bogus about wanting to charge for traffic? > > > Not bogus at all. > > But, there is a big difference between having A Country asking for agreed > upon settlement structures and the current structure where the peers > negotiate how the money is to flow. I.e. I do not personally think it would > be good for the Internet of today to have fixed settlement structures. The > changes in flow, traffic pattern etc will make it completely impossible to > find a mechanism that "works". > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
