|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic
> <snip> > > I sympathize with the customer. There is no reason he should pay for > > traffic he did not request and does not want. If unwanted traffic raises > > your cost of providing the service for which you are paid > > (providing wanted > > traffic) then you should raise your rates. > <snip> > Then why should _I_ bear the cost of traffic destined to you? If you don't want to, don't accept that traffic. It's just like a store stocking Christmas toys. If they don't sell, you're stuck with them. A customer will only pay for what he wants, not what you think he should want. > Somebody has to pay, and I'd rather you pay for it, you seem to > believe that I (and all of the rest of PROVIDER's customers should > pay). Of course the customer pays for it however you slice it. > Which is more or less fair? Both are equally fair if all sides explicitly agree. Burger King could, for example, raise prices in high crime areas, that would be perfectly fair since the crime costs them. But they could also decide that customers prefer more uniformity in pricing and feel they should not pay for other people's crimes, so they'll distribute the cost of crime by raising prices for everyone. Similary, customers don't want to worry about DoS attacks over which they have no control. They may not feel it's fair to pay for something they do not want. So many ISPs find that the uniformity of pricing is worth more to their customers. Neither is inherently more fair or more unfair. They're just different approaches. My point is not that it's unfair to make customers pay for DoS attack traffic. My point is that one-sided arguments make no actual business sense. There is no 'unfair' when all participants agree. The one-sided views are harmful because the people who hold them may be totally blind-sided when their customers come back with the other side, a side they never really looked at because it seemed unreasonable at first blush. Yes, businesses routinely eat costs that affect transactions non-uniformly and build them into more uniform prices. They do this because it provides better billing predictability to their customers. A customer's understand of "your traffic" may not be the same as your understanding and you had better make sure you make it clear. If FedEx delivers a bomb to me postage due, they had better not expect me to pay the charges. I don't want it and the fact that someone told FedEx I wanted it doesn't change anything. DS
|