Sadly, the law firms with big routers seem to prefer a regulatory environment that they can manipulate, so it’s a tough situation to achieve a good outcome.
They are the ones that are blocking the industry from arriving at a good outcome without regulation and they will likely be the ones driving regulation in ridiculous directions away from good outcomes once we start to see regulation. The way lawyers redefine terms and obfuscate to make regulations say what they want instead of what any normal person would think they actually say is truly impressive. Owen > On Jan 28, 2016, at 18:01 , Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nothing says a better Internet than one the government pokes their nose > around in. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William Herrin" <[email protected]> > To: "Randy Bush" <[email protected]> > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 5:25:47 PM > Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane > Electric - and how to solve it > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >> folk can rant on nanog all they want if it >> makes them feel good or self-righteous. > > Hi Randy, > > It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous. > >> won't change a damned thing. > > Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that they're not > terribly far from concluding that closed peering policies are > anti-competitive. When I have such impressions I'm usually off by > years. Still, it would be nice if just once an industry cleaned itself > up -before- regulators forced the issue. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
