[apops] Fw: [IP] Ireland to regulate peering

[Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh@hserus.net>]

Good Lord.

	srs

----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> -----

From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:19:20 -0400
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] Ireland to regulate peering
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.9 (Beta)
Reply-To: dave@farber.net


>Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:37:56 +0100
>From: Alex French <alex@evilal.com>
>Subject: Ireland to regulate peering
>X-Sender: relay@evilal.com@zeno.enigma.ie
>To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.6 required=7.5 tests=MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_2
> version=2.31
>X-Spam-Level: *
>X-Spam-Filtered-At: eList eXpress <http://www.elistx.com/>
>
>
>Dave,
>
>For IP if you think it's suitable.
>
>In brief: New rules being put in place by the Irish telecoms regulator 
>will regulate IP peering between ISPs as if it were a voice interconnect. 
>I'd love to hear from any other IPers who know if this is being proposed 
>anywhere else in Europe. As far as I know, this is unprecedented.
>
>The Irish telecoms regulator (ComReg) has announced a new set of licensing 
>rules for telcos. The bad part is that the rules have been greatly 
>expanded to include regulation of "all electronic communications 
>networks", including (apparently) ISP networks and VPN operators.
>
>ComReg is planning to apply the principles of voice interconnect to all 
>network types; this means that "operators of public communications 
>networks shall have a right, and when requested by other [operators], an 
>obligation to negotiate interconnection with each other for the purpose of 
>providing publicly available electronic communications services." In 
>effect, IP networks will have to peer with each other on request.
>
>Even worse, the "interconnect" (i.e. peering) prices will be subject to 
>review by the Irish regulator if either party feels that they're not being 
>offered a fair deal.
>
>The cherry on the cake is that ISPs can be designated as having 
>"Significant Market Power" (this used to be defined as having 25% of a 
>market, but the criteria are now more nebulous). If you have SMP, you must 
>publish your network cost accounting as prove that the peering prices you 
>charge are cost-oriented (cost + a reasonable ROI)
>
>As I see it, this will lead to the collapse of the current peering/transit 
>negotiation process that ISPs have successfully used all over the world 
>for years. I don't even see how this would benefit smaller ISPs, since the 
>new rules are likely to discourage larger companies from entering this 
>market at all. At the very least, the regulation of peering rates has got 
>to hurt competition.
>
>The relevant documents are available at http://www.comreg.ie. Specific 
>links are
>
>http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101003
>http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=100998
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alex
>


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as suresh@hserus.net
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian + suresh <@> hserus dot net
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Sysadmin