On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 14:57, J S Russell wrote:
I mean, ICONZ is a major NZ ISP, we have a nationwide
POPS, we're peered at APE, WIX, we've got a bunch of major web presences
hosted with us .. if we don't meet TC's peering criteria, then WHO THE
They also refuse to peer with AT&T anymore. To be fair, AT&T in the US
treated TC the same way TC is treating ICONZ......sad to say.
I think Telecom are pretty much the only ones who they peer with...and
everyone elese now has to sit behind Telecom to get their domestic
traffic through to TC.
I am VERY DISAPPOINTED by TelstraClear - even Telecom
doesn't pull this
kind of stunt.
Telstra in Australia control the major peering point(s) and they charge
by the MB for traffic - to everyone.
I suspect they are trying to narrow the peering field down to create a
tiny 2-3 player market that can tacitly agree to charge for
peering....without out actually putting anything in writing. All nods
and winks andloud asides to 3rd parties.
I, and the ICONZ engineering staff, are currently
treating this as damage
and looking for a nice way to route around it.
I can't BELIEVE that some strategically shaved chimp at TelstraClear
actually got PAID to make this decision. Way to build a business
They have rejected the NZ Internet ethos.
Seeing it as a threat to the way things have always been done is a more
or less accurate view.
They have no interest in the public good. They are an amoral corporation
out to maximise profit.....at least I think that is the current excuse
for being amoral.
This is why regulators with sharp teeth are essential.
If any company - telecoms, toilet paper or toast - decides to behave in
an amoral way, then society must impose the 'public good' on
them....just as we do on any sociopathic person....or in this case, a
Steve Withers <swithers(a)mmp.org.nz>