<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Daniel<br><div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting mechanism to Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that ITU could enforce bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP traffic. Remember, this is precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the (primitive at the time) competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, SMTP, ...).<br>Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, because they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :)</span></blockquote></div><br><div>Is this a typo? It's obviously not you that'd get paid. They want foreign (US) ISPs and "OTT service providers" to pay them because you downloaded using their apparently scarce bandwidth.</div><div><br></div><div>BD</div></body></html>