On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Richard Bennett <rich...@bennett.com> wrote: > It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if you > prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely outcome > of the FCC's net neutrality expedition.
I don't think an FCC ban on paid peering is a plausible outcome this go-around. The question, as I understand it, is reclassification of broadband. If they actually go for reclassification, then you guys are screwed. Paid peering would be the least of the dominoes to fall in the follow-on rulemaking which would be necessary as a result of reclassification. Reclassification might bring a serious discussion of L1/L2 structural separation to the table. It wouldn't be the FCC's first foray into structural separation and as far as I know the laws which allow are still on the books. If I was one of the eyeball network lobbyists, I'd be begging the FCC to let me try open peering and give it a chance to achieve the commission's public policy objectives WITHOUT reclassification. But then I guess that's why I'm not a telecom-paid lobbyist, eh? ;) Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
