Slashdot Mirror
Australia Investigates Peering Practices
Anonymous Sniper writes "The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission today announced that it will hold a public inquiry into whether an Internet interconnection [peering] service should be regulated. This would mean the big National ISPs would have to pay smaller ISPs for traffic originating within their networks, which means everyone's routing tables would become more efficient, and cheaper for the smaller ISPs. This would also set a significant international precedent. Horray for the ACCC and Allan Fels - the same people who made Region-Free DVD players legal here."
Anything that leads to a more distributed internet is a Good Thing, IMHO. Lack of centralization is the biggest reason why the net has been successful, but recent trends are disturbing (eg: ICANN). OTOH, the US-centeredness of the internet has decreased greatly since the early days, which is good. Another thing: with the growth of permanent connections worldwide as against dialup, more and more of the average Joes will host their webpages on their own machine (like me :)), as against uploading it to some free server, which would typically be in the US. So maybe things are going to get better.
The small ISPs aren't paying for the large ISPs backbone, and the usage flows both ways through it.
:-)
You don't GET PAID driving down a toll road one way, do you?
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Anything that goes to help out the smaller guys is a good thing. After all, the big guys gobble the little ones up, and then give crappy service for an ever increasing price.
Perhaps this will let these beloved little IPSs survive just a little bit longer.
Anything to keep the internet how it should be is a good idea, and it is nice to see the Aussie gov't protecting capitolism by leveling the playing field. After all, more compeition = better experience for every consumer.
Not only a better experience, but also better prices. Usually if there are only a few competitors in a market, the prices for that good/service will be very similar. A good example of this is gas. No matter who you get your internet service from its the same internet. Anybody that wants to should have a chance to compete in that market.
This is just more commie market regulation.
Everyone knows Free Markets means Freedom!
Market regulation is bad right?
No, market regulation is neither bad nor good...it is simply a necessity, much as police are a necessity when large numbers of individuals are involved. Like civilized society, markets need rules too. When properly formulated and enforced, regulations ensure that everyone has a level playing field.
Regulations can be good or bad, or neither, or both simultaneously. It all depends on how well the regulations achieve their goals...and whether you agree with them.
Does this mean that ISP's with a huge number of Geek users will try null-routing slashdot and sites like it to prevent having to pay the cost when someone elses site gets slashdotted?
Australia really needs some not-for-profit (government sponsored?) peering points (IX's) like they do here in the UK (Linx, Lipex). Having large ISP's in control of the peering game will inevitably make the rules unfair.
Complicating things is the fact that probably the biggest content host in Australia (no names, no pack drill) steadfastly refuses to peer. Of course, they're owned by $tier_1_ISP. If they peer, they give away the traffic. If they don't peer, they charge money for the traffic. What do you think they're going to do?
Can someone show me a single example of the government regulating a service and the cost going DOWN
Basically you're right about what regulation of a product or service does, but be careful - this isn't about regulating the service, it's about regulating the anti-competitive behavior of a cartel. If you look at the countries where internet access is most expensive, they have either a monopoly ISP or a cartel which prevents small companies from entering the market.
When it comes to using a monopoly position to screw competitors out of the market, Telstra makes Microsoft look like an amateur. About the only difference is that rather than Microsoft buying politicians, the government owns 51% of Telstra.
And like Microsoft, the only way it's ever going to improve is if somebody takes a hacksaw to Telstra. They should seperate the retail business into a seperate entity, which pays the network provider just like all the other telcos.
Labor actually suggested this on the quiet (after they got themselves into a horrible mess over telecommunications policy) but I doubt they'll ever actually implement it.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I appreciate the "necessity" of a counter-balancing mechanism such as the ACCC in a rigged system, but in the end it only serves the ultimate interests of the monopolists, oligarchists, and statists, however well-intentioned, because it in fact validates the rigging, and depends on it itself. It becomes part of the problem.
They would do more real good if they were plotting actual insurrection or something.
--rgb
Telstra is about 51% owned by the goverment. They sold off the other 49% to retired people who will lynch the local goverment if the prices drops much more. Of course they bought at the height of the dot com bubble so its a wonder that the shares are worth anything at all.
Telstra (and the reglators) are all tring to serve two (or more) masters and it doesn't work. Until they sell off all of Telstra but they won't do that since the rural people think once that happens, they won't be able to get service anymore.
... yesterday sent off $100 fine for NOT voting in the election - that's how regulated we are.
No. You paid a $100 fine for not attending a polling booth on election day and having your name struck of the register.
You didn't have to vote if you didn't want to. You are however required to demonstrate that it was a conscious decision on your part.