While I do assert the validity of concerns for the economic repercussions as a result of laissez-fair 'Internet' practices, I don't believe the sky is falling. There is enough economic strength to maintain the use we actually get out of necessary pipes, and continued growth will, in do time, support the expansion predicted in the mid to late '90s. Will the shortfall take with it some undeserving companies, peoples, and ideas, yes, but that has been the nature of every economic boom. Legitimate claims can be made that abusive peering policies can be detrimental to the free trade of ideas and commerce, and may lead to monopolies that dwarf the infamy of Standard Oil, AT&T, Debeers... but what is the cost? A government mandated (censorship and exclusion of anti-American 3rd world countries aside) policy at this point will more quickly downward spiral the rapid growth all us geeks have embraced. The only thing that will cushion the blow at this point is continued, if not growing, consumer use; and, the US government--if no private company steps up--may have to buy out some pipes to protect the DOD and primary Intercontinental connections. Any intervention, or escalation of involvement, by the FCC, for accountability and peering regulation, will have to come after the dust settles, in the form of a free trade act aimed at equal pricing for competitors. Have faith in the individual.. I realize this is off the page, so let me leave you with /rant. --jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Cook" <cook@cookreport.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu>; "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:14 PM Subject: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering policy
Regarding Pauls' excellent comment.
During the buildout phase 1995 - 1999 I understand very well the reasons for no regulation of interconnection.
Successful growth was happening too fast for the Fed's to second guess by regulating interconnect the process of which would slow the build out down and do economic harm.
We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why?
All the TIER 1s (6 were mentioned in an earlier comment) are in SERIOUS economic trouble. Their IP networks certainly qualify as CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. EBONE in a matter of days went from 'viable" to life support. After WorldCom's scandal this week does anyone REALLY think a similar UGLY surprise cannot happen here?
As PAUL points out, this is now an industry that is critical to keeping economic activity flowing smoothly, yet Washington is taking more and more of a hands off course.
Where is it possible to gain any reliable data on which networks are lit with what equipment and offering how many actual lambdas? Or even how many fibers in a given back bone are actually lit? We know there is huge unused capacity, yet because there are no reporting requirements as to what networks are lit to what capacity, we very likely don't know whether the fiber in the ground is being used to one per cent of its potential or 10% or even 20%. Moreover we do not know the extent to which optical bandwidth is growing? Not knowing this, how can anyone make any intelligent economic or policy or investment decisions? The LECs must tell the FCC numbers of lines in use and numbers of access minutes. The IP industry must tell the FCC essentially nothing. Why shoud such policy continue?
Does the borg still exist? do big players at least still share this data with each other?
Will Congress have to pass a law before the FCC can demand data?
as Vixie said: "we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind."
Paul Vixie said something important when he commented that
i won't take a position on this, other than that "dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability".
wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer
("citizen").
if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted:
1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life (& economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect
so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here.
none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of "self regulation" currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.
-- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook@cookreport.com Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml ========================================================