[AusNOG] Domestic Peering WAS: Vocus peering traffic missingfrom PIPE-IX?

[Bill Woodcock]

Are you guys aware of the OECD paper on all this, that was recently declassified?

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/internet-traffic-exchange_5k918gpt130q.pdf;jsessionid=1ol4ks765lkb5.delta?contentType=/ns/WorkingPaper&itemId=/content/workingpaper/5k918gpt130q-en&containerItemId=/content/workingpaperseries/20716826&accessItemIds=&mimeType=application/pdf

Gotta love that URL.  Anyway, it doesn't advocate regulated interconnection (quite the opposite), but it does explain a lot of the differences between analog and Internet interconnection economics, in terms regulators can understand.

                                -Bill





On Nov 8, 2012, at 4:29 PM, James Spenceley <james at vocus.com.au> wrote:

> I've been involved with a few peering disputes and the ACCC. Back in 2001 (and again in 2008) we tried to have peering treated as a Declared Service by the ACCC. That would have done exactly what a few people have suggested on list, a set of defined criteria and costs. 
> 
> I really don't have a strong recollection of where it failed (that was 11 years ago now) but in general it got too hard for the ACCC. They seem to understand fixed telco cost models and markets very well. That concept doesn't translate as easily into an esoteric thing like domestic peering. It is much harder to translate how a move to declared peering results in reduction in domestic Internet costs, what other costs increase and who this impacts (both) positively and negatively. With that being hard to quantify, it's very difficult to see what impact that has on competition and the consumer. At the end of the day a $1 drop in the line rental of LSS/ULL or $0.001 reduction in Local Call Termination is much easier to understand and therefore is much easier to regulate, so one would guess gets a lot more focus. 
> 
> --
> James
> 
> 
> On 09/11/2012, at 11:05 AM, Chris Ricks wrote:
> 
>> On 09/11/12 10:51, Luke Iggleden wrote:
>>> On 9/11/12 10:42 AM, Chris Ricks wrote:
>>>> Late last year, I wrote to representatives from three political parties,
>>>> the ACCC and NBN Co on the issue of this braindead GoF arrangement.
>>>> 
>>>> I received the following responses:
>>>> 
>>>> *  From Mr Conroy: Nothing
>>>> *  From Mr Turnbull: I was subscribed to his mailing list
>>>> *  From various people from The Greens: Thanks - we'll look into it!
>>>> *  From the ACCC: Nothing
>>>> *  From NBN Co: The ACCC looked at it again around 2007 and found no
>>>>   need to review the arrangement
>>>> 
>>>> The fact that Conroy has made zero statements on the agreement whilst
>>>> making ignorant statements about additional submarine cable capacity
>>>> being something he'd consider the government getting involved in shows
>>>> that a complete examination of current market issues is simply not being
>>>> addressed by the people who should be doing so.
>>>> 
>>>> - Chris
>>> 
>>> Perhaps old skool, but perhaps we need to get a group of signatures
>>> from members of the AUSNOG group. It's difficult to get one
>>> person/company to make enough noise to get noticed.
>>> 
>>> I suggest a suitable model for how it should be done be drawn up
>>> first. Leaving it up to the ACCC/Government to decide clearly is a fail.
>>> 
>>> I'm glad Conroy didn't touch it, he'd probably legislate to send all
>>> our packets over his (proposed) new submarine cable and remove
>>> domestic peering altogether.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>> 
>> 
>> Sounds like a plan to me. Personally, I quite like Simon Hackett's
>> proposal in that regard - thoughts?