|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
On 24 Aug 1998, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Are you saying that someone should be forced to pay for the privilege of > > offering something for free to your customers? Things that your customers, > > who I number among are requesting? > > I don't know what he was saying, but I'll say something like it: gatekeeper, > wuarchive, cdrom.com, and other archives of free stuff are going to have to > do some kind of micropayment scheme -- charge for downloads in other words -- > in order to pay their own costs to their providers, in order that those > providers are able to pay THEIR costs, in transit they buy or in glass they > lease or whatever. Ok, it hasn't happened yet, and software has been distributed free for quite some time, but let's assume that this is indeed the inevitable. Who pays? Model 1 (current model): a) Recipient pays provider extra for transmission. b) Sender may/may not pay extra for transmission (transit vs. peering) Model 2 (new, shiny, "improved" model): a) Recipient pays sender for download. b) Recipient pays extra for transmission. c) Sender pays provider extra for transmission. Well, wait a minute, doesn't the recipient already normally pay? I have three different providers, BBN being one of them. All bill on the 95th percentile. If I want more data, I pay for the privilege. Works for me. I understand that some providers bill flat-rate. That's their business decision, and may or may not scale. In the case of BBN, I am paying for end to end connectivity to whatever portion of the Internet that happens to be operational at that moment. *I* am already paying for the cost of BBN to get the data from wherever to me. So now under model 2, I am paying twice, not because cdrom.com or wherever wants to charge me extra, but because they are forced to pay for the privilege of sending me data that I requested and am already paying the transmission costs for. The net effect is that the transit provider is double-dipping, and it costs the receiver twice to receive the data. Somehow this doesn't seem to be very attractive to me. > The Internet backbone's growth has been all about barriers to entry and in > special deals. People have been buying their provisioning at flat rate or > with other subsidies, and reselling it at variable rates to folks who came > later or otherwise didn't have access to, or knowledge of, the special deals > of the pioneers. Eventually these special deals run out of time, or run out > of bandwidth, and a true (cost-driven) market economy is developing. > > What we're seeing now is just SO inevitable. Don't worry, we'll be paying for the commercial release of BIND when you guys start selling it... ;-) I thought the whole idea with this Net thingy was to make bandwidth so cheap it wasn't an issue. This of course is a pipe dream. The real idea from the "pros" seems to go something like: "The idea is to make bandwidth so cheap that it doesn't cost us anything to deliver, but allows us to charge the same or more for." Am I close? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v Systems Administrator (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|