North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The Great Exchange
> Michael Shields writes: > > I think pricing based on the actual destination makeup of your > > traffic is more fair than pricing based on the assumption that your > > traffic is like everyone else's. > > So, this is an issue of perceived morality and not a technical issue? > > I think its only fair that everyone pay for the matchbooks they > use. The fact that matchbooks are generally given away these days, > instead of having people charged for them on a usage basis, is grossly > unfair. > > I think it is only fair that everyone pay for the television they > watch on a metered basis. If you watch for ten hours, you should be > paying twice as much as for five hours, right? Its only FAIR!!!!! > > I think it is only fair that you should pay twice as much for a Fedex > package going twice the distance, and I'm MAD THAT THEY DON'T CHARGE > THAT WAY, DAMNIT! > > Now that we've all figured out how silly this sounds... Mr. Shields, > "Fair" has nothing to do with it. What the hell kind of straw man is this? Yes, it sounds absolutely foolish, but you are attacking an argument I did not make. Perry, I am *not* a flake. I don't think that distance-insensitive pricing is immoral; or that it is going away; or that backbones should adopt it; or even that I know or care what sort of pricing models people have. All I said was that distance-sensitive pricing is feasible. What place it has in the market, if any, I don't know, and it is absolutely 100% pointless to argue about it. You think it has no place in the market, and I think it could be worthwhile for some niches. Neither of our opinions matter; the market will figure it out. I don't care to argue about it. It doesn't matter. The market will figure it out. By "fair" I don't mean "moral", I mean "pricing more accurately reflecting costs". I am sorry if you see this as a loaded term. In fact, "fair" is exactly the word used by connect.com.au, the first Australian ISP whose web page I looked at, to decribe their three- tiered pricing model -- intra-network, web cached, and external. This sounds to me like a coarse attempt at distance-sensitive pricing for an area of the world where bandwidth *is* a major cost. So, is it technically viable or not? I posted a method that I think will work, using existing netflow data, i.e. no significant extra router load. Is something wrong with it? -- Shields, CrossLink.
|