4 ms·

> For the Telekom case, we would need a different legislation, for example make paid peering agreements between providers illegal or at least regulated, which w

> For the Telekom case, we would need a different legislation, for example make paid peering agreements between providers illegal or at least regulated, which would then be an incentive to be generally well-connected (free mutual peering is usually considered a win-win scenario unless you are Deutsche Telekom and can use your market power to bully other market participants into another form of rent extraction). And that means that lawmakers and the public need to understand first the specific problem we are fighting. Realistically not going to happen, as the effort would need to be global. Like, Cogent STILL refuses to transit-free IPv6 peer with HE. https://bgp.tools/kb/partitions https://bgp.tools/kb/partitions. T1s are very happy where they are, and it's an exclusive club. Any attempts to tame this behavior from DTAG will also face backlash from basically all the other T1s.

yayachiken 9mo ago
Regulating peering within the EU would already be a win. The providers are then free to either move out of the EU market, or let their non-EU traffic flow via the (then likely larger) unrestricted pipes at DECIX and AMSIX. If they think that routing everything via EU is cheaper instead of just peering better in the other parts of the world to deliver traffic locally, then be it, that is their own economic freedom to decide so. But they will realistically not do that. Also, SDNs will likely never go back to serving content in Europe from e.g. the US. Good connectivity is just generally the economically better option. That being said, T1 companies like Deutsche Telekom who also serve a large consumer base via broadband and mobile and not just other large business networks are probably more vulnerable to such legislation than an exclusive transit provider.
- sgjohnson 9mo ago
  > Regulating peering within the EU would already be a win. Regulating peering how? Freedom of commerce is one of the core pillars of the EU. Forcing a company to do business with another company is insanity. If DTAG doesn't want to peer with CloudFlare, you can't force them.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    WhatsApp has been required to provide an open API, Apple has been required to provide alternative app stores. Neither one has actually done it because the EU is too pussy to enforce the law, but the legislators clearly had no huge principle disagreement when writing these laws. Mobile networks have been forced to allow roaming in other countries for a certain low fee, and that is actually enforced and has happened. It's clear the EU has no qualms about forcing companies to do business a certain way when it serves some greater interest.
    - sgjohnson 9mo ago
      The difference between WhatsApp open API, alternative App Stores and forcing peering is that it costs virtually nothing for WhatsApp to provide an open API, and for Apple to allow alternative App Stores. Roam-like-at-home is also not a particularly good comparison here, because the the roaming fees were basically a price gouging scheme. Don't like DTAG? You're free to switch to another ISP.
      - luckylion 9mo ago
        What's your estimation for how much more expensive it would be for DTAG to peer at Decix instead of only doing dedicated private peerings that they get paid for? Because I don't believe it's about any additional cost -- it's only about additional revenue that could be extracted. That's a behavior you don't like to see from a state-owned ex-"Only Offer Allowed" monopolist that is still dominating the market while the government entities tasked with regulating the market are closing both eyes.
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        It costs DTAG virtually nothing to have good peering, certainly compared to their income. It costs Apple a very high percentage of their revenue to allow alternative app stores, since their main revenue source is the 30% tax on all in-app purchases through the Apple store.
  - yayachiken 9mo ago

yayachiken 9mo ago

Regulating peering within the EU would already be a win. The providers are then free to either move out of the EU market, or let their non-EU traffic flow via the (then likely larger) unrestricted pipes at DECIX and AMSIX. If they think that routing everything via EU is cheaper instead of just peering better in the other parts of the world to deliver traffic locally, then be it, that is their own economic freedom to decide so. But they will realistically not do that. Also, SDNs will likely never go back to serving content in Europe from e.g. the US. Good connectivity is just generally the economically better option. That being said, T1 companies like Deutsche Telekom who also serve a large consumer base via broadband and mobile and not just other large business networks are probably more vulnerable to such legislation than an exclusive transit provider.

sgjohnson 9mo ago
> Regulating peering within the EU would already be a win. Regulating peering how? Freedom of commerce is one of the core pillars of the EU. Forcing a company to do business with another company is insanity. If DTAG doesn't want to peer with CloudFlare, you can't force them.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  WhatsApp has been required to provide an open API, Apple has been required to provide alternative app stores. Neither one has actually done it because the EU is too pussy to enforce the law, but the legislators clearly had no huge principle disagreement when writing these laws. Mobile networks have been forced to allow roaming in other countries for a certain low fee, and that is actually enforced and has happened. It's clear the EU has no qualms about forcing companies to do business a certain way when it serves some greater interest.
  - sgjohnson 9mo ago
    The difference between WhatsApp open API, alternative App Stores and forcing peering is that it costs virtually nothing for WhatsApp to provide an open API, and for Apple to allow alternative App Stores. Roam-like-at-home is also not a particularly good comparison here, because the the roaming fees were basically a price gouging scheme. Don't like DTAG? You're free to switch to another ISP.
    - luckylion 9mo ago
      What's your estimation for how much more expensive it would be for DTAG to peer at Decix instead of only doing dedicated private peerings that they get paid for? Because I don't believe it's about any additional cost -- it's only about additional revenue that could be extracted. That's a behavior you don't like to see from a state-owned ex-"Only Offer Allowed" monopolist that is still dominating the market while the government entities tasked with regulating the market are closing both eyes.
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      It costs DTAG virtually nothing to have good peering, certainly compared to their income. It costs Apple a very high percentage of their revenue to allow alternative app stores, since their main revenue source is the 30% tax on all in-app purchases through the Apple store.
- yayachiken 9mo ago