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@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