nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint peering policy
From: Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:17:48 -0500
Paul Vixie wrote: <Space SNIP>
knowing that the pain can be transformed from "can't exchange traffic" pain into "must pay money" pain tends to reinforce this perception.
Imagine that. :\
when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers.
Because "Bernie and Crowd" convinced the World Gov'ts that everyone would play fair without intervention. They promise, cross your heart, hope you die. "Trust me" is NY slang for FU, FWIW. * shrug * Carnegie once said... :\
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Sprint peering policy Rizzo Frank (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy alex (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Paul A Flores (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz (Jul 01)
- Game Theory (was: RE: Sprint peering policy) Scott A Crosby (Jul 01)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard Irving (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Phil Rosenthal (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy David Schwartz (Jul 01)
- RE: Sprint peering policy Daniel Golding (Jul 01)