> Some staffer takes a 30 second look into the problem, and decides
> that peering is *so* overwhemed that in order for everyone to reach
> everyone else the Government should step in and regulate it.
>
> The 'Net gives some measure of universal connectivity because it
> was driven at its root by engineering. Who on NANOG, with any real
> world experience in networking, denies that maximum open peering
> benefits everyone?
>
You are missing the point entirely. We are not in some idyllic
r&d environment where j.random hacker gets to play with his
new ip router and maybe even connect two computers together.
We are motivated by profit. If a certain position can maximize
the profits of a company, it will rationally move towards
that position.
> This decision, and the arguments in favor of pay-per-peer, has
> nothing to do with engineering. It has to do with paper-pushers
> who wouldn't know the difference between peering and transit if
> it were on 500 power-point slides, because they look at MONEY. They
> see "bits per second", and who they came from, and conclude that
> those packets are not sourced on their network and therefore someone
> should be paying for them specifically.
>
You play engineering and revenue as a dichotomy when in fact
it is a duality. In the "real world" that you like to refer
to, it is more of a symbiotic relationship. Though it would
be nice to be aloof in a lab and be lavishly compensated, I would
venture to say that such a situation is not the norm.
Let us get one point understood. You deserve nothing more than
you pay for. You were not, by merit of your diction, infrastructure,
prowess, or mandate from heaven, conferred a right to the
resources of another individual or conglomeration of individuals.
If you abhor these paper-pushers so, you are more than able to
find the capitalisation to finance a global altruistic
network where anyone can peer with anyone and we will all get along.
It will be akin to the communes of the 60s. We can just
hallucinate until the reality evaporates.
BR
