North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The Great Exchange
At 12:42 PM 6/2/98 +0200, Julian Rose wrote: >Some crystal ball gazing... Those who peer too much, into crystal balls, often eat glass <grin>. >I expect to see an amount of distance billing in the future, but only >alongside QoS billing, for example. > >Email - Non urgent, low traffic - I would expect this to remain flat rate >(i.e. Free with connection). As with browsing traffic etc. Caches will >add an intersting factor to this model, e.g Retrieving files from the ISP's >local cache - (Free with connection), Retrieving from distant locations, >perhaps dependant on time of day etc. Why would there be a difference? On one hand, ISP disk capacity is used and OTOH ISP band-width is used. These days, about the same cost. Besides, it's second-order effect anyway and the market won't stand-still for it. >Voice over IP - This is starting to get bandwidth and delay sensitive >dependant on the efficiency of the Internet in the future, I expect this >might start to be billed dependant on distance/providers travelled over >etc. As otherwise if two ISP's do not directly connect or peer, an >intermediate ISP would have to carry this traffic. If this traffic >requires a high QoS, I would imagine the intermediate ISP would want to >charge for it. Does that "Intermediate ISP" include such as MAE-WEST? They're already charging for it, have you seen NAP bandwidth prices lately? >Video over IP - When it comes around and end users via their xDSL >connections want to receive 1.5Mbs of video traffic - I can see definate >costs being incurred. Of course multicast techniques, caching etc will >make this not a geographical distance based pricing model, but a pricing >model will surely evolve. Until we get decent bandwidth at the end-user site, this simply won't happen. Modem connections barely support Voice-over-IP. I mean a preponderance of end-users must have sufficient direct band-width to make them a decent market. Even when this does happen, they won't want to use it for video. A classic is the MCI commercial where that gal was telecommuting (bath-robing at noon), the last thing such would want is a video-based conference. Been there, doing that. >Of course this argument of carrying others traffic applies to peering also, >if two ISP's peer a similar amount of data, no problem, but if it is one >sided then billing would have to occur. In other words, we will all buy >and sell our connectivity to each other. > >One thing this state of affairs would lead to if it occurs is some scope >for very interesting pricing models, value adds etc. I don't think so. We have had remarkable lack of success in moving away from the flat-rate pricing model, in the face of competition. Customers want predictable bills. Volume based billing will not give them this. However, they are more than willing to pay higher flat-rate costs, if there is value-add. >A topic measured earlier was the ratio between payroll/equipment costs vs >line costs. The ratio of this will depend on the model of the ISP. A >dialup provider will incurr much higher support costs for a much smaller >bandwidth than a transit/backbone provider, which the line costs would be >expected to be the majority of their costs. > >... Perhaps a bit more than 2 cents... > >Julian Rose >---------------------------------------------------------- > Internet Planning & Design >AT&T Unisource Communications Services, Hoofddorp, Holland > Tel: +31 (0)23 569 7878 Fax: +31 (0)23 569 7455 >---------------------------------------------------------- > ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) e-mail: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/ ___________________________________________ SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!
|