I hesitate to respond to Mr. Bennett. But since he has asserted my opinion
on this matter...
There is no reasonable reading of the early FCC Open Internet proposed
rulemaking that would lead to a ban on paid peering. It takes a number of
logical leaps and a great deal of inference to even get clos
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> So when you said: "I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light" before
> the weight of government crashes down on them" you were positing an unlikely
> outcome?
I wasn't positing any specific government action. I opine only that
the c
So when you said: "I can only hope the holdouts will "see the light"
before the weight of government crashes down on them" you were positing
an unlikely outcome? For what purpose, trolling?
BTW, I'm not a lobbyist, but you already knew that.
RB
On 7/29/14, 4:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Richard Bennett 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
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. It wasn't that long ago
that a number of NANOGers insisted that such action by the FCC was
totally out
Howdy folks,
It seems to me that we're moving in a direction where either
ratioless, high-capacity settlement-free peering will be a industry
requirement exercised voluntarily, or where some heavy-handed
government regulation will compel some kind of interconnection that
the holdouts find even les
6 matches
Mail list logo
