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@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> 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@xxxxxxxx >> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf