North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Paying for delivery of packets (was about Sprint Peering, and Importance of Content)

  • From: JC Dill
  • Date: Thu Jul 11 23:14:15 2002


On 11:31 AM 7/11/02, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
>JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700
>JD> From: JC Dill
>
>
>JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly
>JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for
>JD> those receiving said packets, much in the way that 800
>JD> numbers are funded in the telephone system. In order for
>JD> that to work, we will need a settlement system. I predict
>JD> that something like this will start happening before
>JD> 12/2005.
>
>Agreed, except is any fancy settlement really needed? I predict
>asymmetric pricing.

The problem with asymmetric pricing is that the cost of passing the packets is equally born by both ends. Take 2 networks that peer, one with mostly content, one with mostly eyeballs. The content providers pay a higher price *per MB* for bandwidth to their provider than the end user does, but both networks have equal costs in transiting the packets from the server to the end user.

>>From a political standpoint, it's easier to get a business to pay
>an extra <x> per month to deliver their content than it is to get
>Joe Public to pay an extra $10/mo for premium access.

Joe's ISP needs to pay for fat pipes to get the data (from wherever Joe's ISP peers with the content provider's network) to Joe's eyeballs. That cost has to be borne by someone. Either Joe pays an equally high rate (per MB) for incoming packets as the content provider pays for sending them, or the content provider pays and there are settlements between the content provider's network and the Joe's network.

My premise is that in the end, content providers want to send lots of packets more than end users want to pay to receive them. Joe is not willing to pay an equally high rate to get the packets that content providers are willing to pay to send them. Thus, settlements.

>I think 12/2005 is conservative. Industry fallout begins
>settling, and we see interesting tactics from "new breed"
>upstarts run by laid-off engineers with a bit of money and a
>bunch of clue. Beginning of 2005, significant presence by the
>end of the year.

I was hedging my bet. :-) I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it much sooner, even by the end of 2002.

jc