On 29/03/2007, at 11:29 AM, Matthew Poole wrote:
"While emphasing that it's still early days for the proposal and details need to be worked out, Marshall says providers would pay for circuits into Telecom's network, and the incumbent would reciprocate for connections towards providers."
Which is not entirely different to say, buying a 'circuit' so you can peer across the WIX. Obviously there is a big difference in the nature of the circuit provider and Telecom though!
How is this an improvement on the current situation? They're not making use of existing peering infrastructure, they're just making other providers pay for a (Telecom-supplied) connection into Telecom's network, which is an option that's always been available to anyone willing to spend the money.
In which case other providers will make their own choice as to whether or not it makes sense for them to interconnect in this way.
Here's hoping that they get told that anything less than true neutral peering isn't good enough.
That's assuming of course that it is desirable to _mandate_ that all providers peer. Sounds like a dangerous proposition to me. Particularly given there are no common and widely accepted definitions of what peering and other related terms actually mean, where 'widely' encompasses the whole of industry. The real worry here is that if Telecom were to end up running with a faux-peering setup, that they successfully use it as a 'see, we are good and we peer!' bargaining chip in any regulatory discussion. All in all I think this is a positive step forward, but let's not read too much into it just yet. Cheers, Jonny.