On 19 dec 2009, at 01.01, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The current structures give a huge advantage to US and European
providers.
Yes and no.
The trick here is that the question is not so simple (or the answer to the
question is not so simple). I was myself working with launching Internet in
Europe from -87 and sure, we had to pay quite a lot to get our first connection
to ISPs (then only in the US) so I am pretty sure I have been in the situation
you talk about. "That we thought the situation was unfair."
But, the question is much more complicated than that. And specifically when
(lack of) deregulation and other regulative mechanisms comes into place. That
it might not only be a question of market negotiations that is the problem.
Getting "landing rights" in a country if you do not have operations there is
extremely difficult. Including in the US, and very hard in many of the
countries that today need better Internet Connectivity.
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.
I agree with you only if you include also "existence of old regulation, and
lack of interest in deregulation".
ITU-T is not an illogical place to take that type of complaint, it
surely isn't an IETF/ISOC/ICANN issue.
It ends up an IETF issue to the degree that IETF should at least say it is
*NOT* an IETF issue, and changes to our protocols do not solve the problem.
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.
What is currently happening is also that all organisations (private entities,
countries, public entities, incumbents etc) is extremely conservative, and if
any of these find an argument they can try to bend in their favour (to some
degree create a smoke screen) they will do it.
Some entities even bring up "international disputes must be resolved" when in
reality the problem is a domestic regulative issue. A dispute between incumbent
and competitors.
I.e. the question and problem space is large, extremely large, and what is
needed is that discussions about these things do include all issues, and for
example not the "number of $$ that someone have to pay" but also "why is the $$
so high".
Patrik
2009/12/18 Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>:
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf