Editing Peering (section)

==Law and policy==
Internet interconnection is not regulated in the same way that public [[telephone]] network interconnection is regulated.<ref name="oecd-woodcock-weller">{{cite journal |last1=Woodcock |first1=Bill |last2=Weller |first2=Dennis |title=Internet Traffic Exchange: Market Developments and Policy Challenges |journal=OECD Digital Economy Papers |date=29 January 2013 |volume=207 |doi=10.1787/5k918gpt130q-en |url=https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5k918gpt130q-en.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210808082023/https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5k918gpt130q-en.pdf |archive-date=2021-08-08 |url-status=live |publisher=OECD |quote=The performance of the Internet market model contrasts sharply with that of traditional regulated forms of voice traffic exchange. If the price of Internet transit were stated in the form of an equivalent voice minute rate, it would be about USD 0.0000008 per minute—five orders of magnitude lower than typical voice rates. This is a remarkable and under-recognised endorsement of the multi-stakeholder, market driven nature of the Internet.}}</ref> Nevertheless, Internet interconnection has been the subject of several areas of federal policy in the United States. Perhaps the most dramatic example of this is the attempted [[MCI Inc.|MCI Worldcom]]/[[Sprint Nextel|Sprint]] merger. In this case, the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] blocked the merger specifically because of the impact of the merger on the Internet backbone market (thereby requiring MCI to divest itself of its successful "internetMCI" business to gain approval).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1829.htm |title=Justice Departments Clears WorldCom/MCI Merger after MCI Agrees to Sell its Internet Business |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090601034716/http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1829.htm |archive-date=1 June 2009  }}</ref> In 2001, the [[Federal Communications Commission]]'s advisory committee, the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council recommended that Internet backbones publish their peering policies, something that they had been hesitant to do beforehand{{citation needed|date=September 2016}}. The FCC has also reviewed competition in the backbone market in its Section 706 proceedings which review whether advanced [[telecommunications]] are being provided to all [[United States|Americans]] in a reasonable and timely manner.

Finally, Internet interconnection has become an issue in the international arena under something known as the International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services (ICAIS).<ref>[http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/2074136.pdf Internet Traffic Exchange and the Development of End to End International Telecommunication Competition], OECD 3/25/02</ref> In the ICAIS debate, countries underserved by Internet backbones have complained that it is unfair that they must pay the full cost of connecting to an Internet exchange point in a different country, frequently the United States. These advocates argue that Internet interconnection should work like international telephone interconnection, with each party paying half of the cost.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=T-REC-D.50| title = ITU-T Recommendation D.50}}</ref> Those who argue against ICAIS point out that much of the problem would be solved by building local exchange points. A significant amount of the traffic, it is argued, that is brought to the US and exchanged then leaves the US, using US exchange points as switching offices but not terminating in the US.<ref>[http://www.caida.org/outreach/presentations/Myths2001/index.html CAIDA: Internet Measurement: Myths about Internet data] (5 December 2001)</ref> In some worst-case scenarios, traffic from one side of a street is brought all the way to a distant exchange point in a foreign country, exchanged, and then returned to another side of the street.<ref name="CIRA2012">{{cite web
 |url         = http://www.cira.ca/assets/Uploads/Toward-Efficiencies-in-Canadian-Internet-Traffic-Exchange2.pdf
 |title       = Toward Efficiencies in Canadian Internet Traffic Exchange
 |first1      = Bill
 |last1       = Woodcock
 |first2      = Benjamin
 |last2       = Edelman
 |date        = 12 September 2012
 |publisher   = [[Canadian Internet Registration Authority]] and [[Packet Clearing House]]
 |access-date  = 20 October 2013
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20130825111225/http://cira.ca/assets/Uploads/Toward-Efficiencies-in-Canadian-Internet-Traffic-Exchange2.pdf
 |archive-date = 25 August 2013
 |df          = dmy-all
}}</ref> Countries with liberalized telecommunications and open markets, where competition between backbone providers occurs, tend to oppose ICAIS.{{Citation needed|date=September 2021}}