Hi Fredy, On 30 Mar 2012, at 22:48, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
> Now, obviously, the French regulator sees the trouble and trys to understand > and 'regulate' it the way they do it usually. From our perspective certainly > not a good way, but why blaming the regulator? Blame those which made it all > happen! Read: the restrictive incumbents which put obstacles in the way of > everyone else. I wish the world was so simple .. There is reasons why incumbents do not peer. Each time I had the time to seat with one of their peering coordinator, I always got a good reason to why they did what they did. I do not always agree with all of them but most of the time I could not fail their logic. I am quite exasperated by the number of networks who believe they have a god given right to free peering (and this goes from small content with no backbone cost but lots of traffic to network which are seen as T1), perhaps Peering sould be called it "limited cross-transit contract with equal billing on each side " (ie: it is not free the invoice just contra themselves), even if it is a mouthful, it may better explain why it is not a right. And I agree with Raphael that once the asset are listed, it is sooo tempting to TAX the very profitable Internet industry. I am already hearing the **AA asking for an income per Mb of transfer to compensate for the piracy the ISP are sooo clearly accomplice of ( Time to add bandwidth to the list on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy ). Peering is an "abnormality" which regulators will have much need of help to understand and not destroy. As the thread names him, time to employ so more lobbyist to help Malcolm making sure they are kept at bay. Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
