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 <tim@dts.net.nz> 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@list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces@list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Sam Russell
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:21 AM
To: Juha Saarinen
Cc: nznog@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 <juha@saarinen.org> wrote:

Wrote this earlier today:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/316593,eu-telcos-seek-end-to-settlement-free-peering.aspx

Would be interested to hear what the local view on mandatory SPNP.

Hei kon�� mai,
--
Juha Saarinen AITTP
juha.saarinen.org

��
<image001.jpg>Twitter
<image002.jpg>
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog