North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: decreased caching efficiency?

  • From: William Allen Simpson
  • Date: Fri Oct 20 10:11:29 2000

Dana Hudes wrote:
> I vehemently disagree with the statement that impressions do not make any sense,
> only clickthroughs. There is such a thing as brand awareness, a situation where
> a banner ad is good for itself even if it doesn't lead to click through.
Of course, in that case, the benefit is to the advertiser.  That is, 
they get the benefit, but you don't get paid.  Not my problem.

That seems to follow "not make any sense", but YMMV.

> It is NOT for YOU to decide what business model makes sense for MY
> business relationship with MY advertisers.
Nope.  You can have any business relationship you'd like.  But, 
by the same token, it is not for *YOU* to decide that *I* have to 
pay to support YOUR business decision.

Last time I looked, there's no constitutional right that 
guarantees that you can make money.

> I pay my ISP to carry IP packets around. 

But, you don't pay ME to carry your IP packets around.  My customers 
pay me.  I pay my upstream.  Therefore, I pay my upstream as little 
as possible.

> In some cases certainly your cache is in fact a copyright violation.
Interesting, if true.  Perhaps you could provide a citation?

[email protected]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32