> On Aug 11, 2020, at 3:43 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 3:17 PM Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> How is this different from a non-profit IX ? >> > > it sounds like the proposal is effectively (to use your example) a > "global non-profit IX". > > It sounds like the expectation is likely that: > 1) 'the core' operates globally as a neutral provider > 2) 'the core' offers 'transit' to end-networks (LMPs) at a cost > which is not ... usery > 3) all of the global areas have the same world view on 'Network Neutrality' > > It seems ... like a pretty high lift to move from today to the utopia proposed. 3 is a high enough bar given the disparity of connectivity and content directives of all the countries in the world, but also this paper seems to be at least 10 years too late given the realities of the transit market globally, and aspirational net neutrality goals aside, seems to be rather inconsistent in its financial analysis. Cost of building the backbone vs. last mile even by the paper’s own admission is heavily weighted towards the last mile and under such scenario one would think that the significant need for invest in last mile would be the barrier to entry vs. cost of building a backbone which has gotten orders of magnitudes cheaper and continues to do so to a point where non-transit private backbones dominate today’s Internet by traffic volume. -dorian
