Networks in developing countries often refuse to peer with each other, because they are competing. This ends up making their internet connections more expensive and more brittle. Not connecting to your competitor only makes sense if there is only ONE other competitor. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to partner up with everyone, and then hope that everyone else doesn’t partner up with each other. Therefore, if we want to have rich, dependable internet connectivity, then we need at least 3 roughly equal sized competitors in a market. Right now, internet stuff in the US has two: cable and telcos.
The FCC has been trying to help wireless come along, and if wireless is
actually successful in establishing a foothold, then I think the continued
freedom and expansion off the internet may be in good hands. If we are left
with a duopoly, then network neutrality legislation is probably the only course
of action if we want to have an internet of free speech and low cost
connectivity. With only two players, disconnection and lack of service and
service degradation become effective tools.
Keep the internet free, root for SOMEthing else besides just cable and DSL.
Maybe IP over power lines, but probably not. Maybe fiber to the home from a
non-telco source, but probably not. Maybe community wireless! But probably
not. But we need some third competitor.
