Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)

From: Michal Krsek (no email)
Date: Fri Nov 07 2008 - 09:17:28 EST

  • Next message: (no name): "Re: ECN"

    > First, let me say that I think peering regulation is a terrible idea.
    > No matter how cleverly you plan it, the result will be that fewer
    > small companies can participate. That's the character of regulation:
    > compliance creates more barriers to entry than it removes.
    > That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
    > transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
    > States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
    > foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need.

    Have you kept in your mind that this may be changed in future? I know,
    we are talking in NANOG, but ... Some regions works on Internet
    development a bit faster than US and in future, this regulation may
    motivate some overseas players to stop peering in US. For example LINX
    and AMS-IX are good place to get peering in EU.


  • Next message: (no name): "Re: ECN"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD