Re: Sprint peering policy

[Pat Myrto <pat () rwing ORG>]

Paul Vixie has declared that:
> >  Usually the pain for one party is greater than the pain for the
> >  other, unless they are really peers of each other, in which case
> >  settlement free interconnections happen. However, if there isn't
> >  equal amounts of pain being felt on both sides, then normally the
> >  party with the more hurt tries to redress the issue.
> >
> >  Usually this imbalance in perceived value is redressed by one of the
> >  parties offering to make up the difference by some form of a transfer
> >  of money.
>
> and yet, the party who experiences the pain will normally perceive the
> other party's *intentions* as the cause of that pain.  knowing that the
> pain can be transformed from "can't exchange traffic" pain into "must
> pay money" pain tends to reinforce this perception.
>
> 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.
 
Better not say that too loud, some politico will get a
hot idea.  While intervention MIGHT reduce 'pain' the
resultant new pain from govt rules/regs/decrees/bureaucracy
may well induce a lot more pain for everyone in the
long run.

All too often govt 'fixes' end up being worse than the problem(s)
they claim to address...

Jush a random thot...

Pat M/HW
-- 
#include <std.disclaimer.h>    Pat Myrto (pat at rwing dot ORG)     Seattle WA
Americans used to roar like lions for liberty: Now they bleat like sheep
for security
     -Norman Vincent Peale