[129634] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Eisenberg)
Tue Sep 14 12:59:20 2010
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:58:58 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4C8F991A.70309@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Would you object to an ISP model where a content provider could pay to ge=
t an
> ISP subscriber's package upgraded on a dynamic basis?
Yes - and the reason is extremely simple. There are a lot of ISPs and a lo=
t of plans. If I'm an entrepreneur looking to build Hulu from the ground u=
p in a pre-Hulu world, am I really going to find EVERY ISP who supports thi=
s, and then raise the funding to pay them to allow their paying customers t=
o get to my servers?
The answer is no. Implementing this kind of system would stunt innovative =
new ideas that require a level playing field.
The more disturbing effect, though, is this: What if I'm a content provider=
that your ISP doesn't like? I'm out of luck because you won't take my mon=
ey to deliver my content at the rate I need to your customers - even though=
you will take my competitors?
I don't see how anyone wins. Innovators lose for want of being able to exe=
cute. Content providers lose due to having to manage, maintain, and pay ou=
t a fee structure that's almost as complex as the routing table. Customers=
lose as a result of inconsistent and unpredictable usability. ISPs lose a=
s function of customers losing confidence in their ability to provide servi=
ce (to them, it 'just doesn't work for everything').
Yes, I would object.
Nathan
