North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: UUNET: Content vs. CIDR
Without over-simplifying, or taking a side, aren't we missing the point? The big kids make the rules; if the little kids wanna play, they go along with the big kids' rules. So the short, and not-as-facetious-as-it-sounds, answer to "Why is UUNet committing this atrocity" is "Because they have good reason to believe... 1) it will work; and 2) they'll get away with, and profit from, it." I think Scott Y. nailed it - we vote with our pocketbooks, and with our networks. And we allow (or force?) our customers to do the same - we can't, after all, eat all of these additional expenses, so end-user prices may be driven up by UUNet's actions. If that doesn't meet with acceptance by a balance of the Internet community, including end-users, then a reaction will take place. In the meantime, if your ability to provide service is compromised, I think you'll find that this will prove an opportunity to the "pretty big" providers, in that they will be able to fill the gap by selling transit. And I think undercutting the "big kids" in pricing that service is not only likely, but a moral imperative. :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Steve Hines [email protected] Network Operations 770 518 5392 Gridnet International 1 800 GRIDNET "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- >---------- >From: James Saker[SMTP:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 5:40 PM >To: 'Aaron France'; '[email protected]' >Cc: Todd Keener (E-mail) >Subject: UUNET: Content vs. CIDR > > >Aaron France writes: >>Unless we can implement a way to bill eachother for traffic passed >through eachothers pipes (reciprical billing, like telco's), they have >no right to assume that they can bill us because their network is bigger. > > >Theoretical question: What if ISP-X had only one dedicated connection >behind it, and subsequently was 1/100,000 the size of NSP-Y. ISP-X's only >connection was a single content provider: Yahoo. > >How do we resolve the settlement issues in this model? Why should the ISP-X >pay NSP-Y to deliver valuable content to its consumers (dialup and >dedicated)? Does the possession of more CIDR blocks dictate value? In >today's market (of significant price competition, where UUNET is not >terribly competitive), UUNET would probably experience substantial erosion >of its client base. Wall Street and shareholders should pay particular >attention to UUNET's follow-through of this policy as it appears to have >the potential to impact its market share (and subsequently its revenues). > >Traditional broadcasting models work in reverse of the UUNET model, but >again, we're focusing on the wrong layer for settlement; i.e. the value is >in the content, not the CIDR. > >Having UUNET charge peering ISPs for application content on their network >is like having Hughes charge Cox, TCI, and other CATV networks for >receiving CNN's broadcast over the satellite, while also charging CNN to >carry their signal. It is my understanding that the settlement is between >the CATV network and CNN, and Hughes is only transit paid for by CNN out of >this settlement revenue. > >As diagrammed (with Internet / CableTV models referenced), the settlement >model should look like this: > > consumer pays local access provider (ISP / CATV) > local access provider receives content from transit provider (NSP / >Satellite) > transit provider is paid by content provider ("webcaster" / Cable network >channel) > content provider charges local access provider > >Looking at a few other industries, there are significant parallels. With >postal service, the producer of the content usually pays the transit >provider to deliver the content to the recipient. I.e. Compaq pays UPS to >ship a new computer to me. I pay Compaq for the content. Of course, items >can come "postage due," but not typically when the sender has also paid >postage. Does this infer that content producers in the Internet are not >paying 100% of the delivery expense? Considering there is no charge between >UUNET subscribers outside of the fee each pays to connect (i.e. the process >of sending packets to another UUNET subscriber does not create additional >charges outside of the base fee), this does not seem to be the case. > >What then is the origin of the peer point charge? The expense of delivering >the traffic to the exchange for consumption by another external network? >Wasn't this paid for by the content producer (i.e. what is my $3,000 / >month going for, if not for transit to exchange points? Local loops only >cost $340). Again, it appears that freight has been paid for already in the >UUNET model. It appears that the primary motivation for UUNET's move can >only be to eliminate competitive pressures from mid-sized ISPs by >restricting financially viable peering to a handful of providers, >subsequently increasing network service prices. > >Putting our company into the above model, Intellitek (a content provider) >is not interested in charging local access providers for access to our >products at the current time. Marketshare is of significant value, and we >value the unrestrained access to our services consumers of the respective >local access providers. ISPs represent a significant consumer base, and >unrestrained access by these consumers to our content services is key to >the success of our application. > >However, if our transit provider (UUNET) suddenly impacts our ability to 1) >set our delivery policy (presently at zero charge per consumer) and 2) >limits the extent of market reach in its attempt to profit from our >content, I would imagine that we would not continue the use of such a >transit provider, with one exception. > >If we balance the settlements by charging the transit provider, we >subsequently create a situation where charges are being passed on. I.e. >UUNET becomes a wholesaler of Intellitek application services. UUNET >benefits from content consumed from our application service through peer >points. Content is subsequently transfered to UUNET's domain through a >distributor arrangement for delivery to ISP "retail outlets." > >This may work in an environment where peering is not restricted on a casual >basis, and multiple transit arrangements are available. I cannot imagine a >Compaq or Digital limiting distribution of its product through only one >wholesaler -- and content providers equally would not support such a >relationship with its transit provider. > >I expect that if UUNET continues its course, content providers on its >network will either migrate to other networks to ensure delivery of their >content to their market without restriction, or impose settlements on UUNET >that balance the economic model and open their networks multiple transit >providers. > >JRS > >James R. Saker Jr. Intellitek Inc. >President, Network Media Division voice: 402.333.6233 >[email protected] fax: 402.333.6432 >http://intellitek.com > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |