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 <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