That's a good point.
Didn't the old "free dialup internet" plans come about as a way to deal
with SPNP? The version I heard was that Clear had to pay lots to Telecom
because more calls went from Clear to Telecom than the other way, so
getting Telecom customers to dial into Clear (and it was dodgy so you'd
have to dial up when it dropped out every half hour or do) meant Clear
could get money back from Telecom.
If telcos had done settlement free peering instead of this rent-seeking
SPNP that's designed to squash out smaller players, then smaller players
wouldn't have to resort to such contrived tactics to stay afloat, and could
focus on providing better value to their paying customers
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Tim Price wrote:
Agreed, unless of course the Telco has made the business decision to zero
rate the likes of Netflix at which point you have to say that the business
decision was flawed.
*From:* nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:
nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] *On Behalf Of *Sam Russell
*Sent:* Monday, September 24, 2012 10:21 AM
*To:* Juha Saarinen
*Cc:* nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
*Subject:* Re: [nznog] ETNO SPNP proposal
The ISP customers pay to be connected to anything in the world, so they've
already paid for the traffic that they're requesting. This is just another
example of telcos trying to drag us back to the dark ages so they can
continue to extract rent from us for things we don't want
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Juha Saarinen wrote:
Wrote this earlier today:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/316593,eu-telcos-seek-end-to-settlement-free-p...
Would be interested to hear what the local view on mandatory SPNP.
Hei konā mai,*
--
*Juha Saarinen AITTP*
*juha.saarinen.org
http://twitter.com/juhasaarinenTwitterhttp://twitter.com/juhasaarinen
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
