Just to add a bit to that, the US Government could force providers to peer with all providers meeting certain requirements (enter telco history) but I think there would be difficulty requiring them to peer with non-US companies.

Actually the US Government already has such a policy. Buried deep inside the original NSF NAP solicitation was the requirement any provider must peer with any other provider connected to all three priority NAPs, or it would not qualify as an NSP for NSF connection grants. There was no requirement for minimum connection speed to a NAP or between the NAPs to qualify as an NSP. This was to keep the old NSF mid-level networks from losing connectivity with each other if they happened to choose different NSPs. I'm guessing the NSF connection program has wound down by now, so this isn't that much of a factor any more. But there is no reason why the same conditions couldn't be imposed on other government funds for network connectivity. Nor is there anything preventing other customers from choosing their provider on the same basis, or putting similar conditions in their contracts. If customers don't realize that different providers have different interconnection policies, they may not know its something they should consider. I used to recommend UUNET to customers in part because they peered with lots of other providers. Markets are usually better at sorting these things out than governments, as long as the consumer has all the information to make a decision. But if you like involving government, the big providers usually have more restrictions on them because they like getting government money. vBNS and ICM are two examples that could lead to interesting peering requirements from the government on the providers. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation