[129816] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Palmer)
Tue Sep 21 01:14:37 2010
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:14:18 +1000
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0A52AE25@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:01:58PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> But there is a potential problem here in that content providers are
> producing applications and content requiring increasing amounts of
> bandwidth but are not bearing the cost of delivering that content to the
> end user.
Yes they are -- content providers aren't getting their connections to the
Internet for free (and if they are, how can I get me some of that?).
> If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at
> some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the
> end user.
Say wha? ISPs don't *have* to peer at an IX; if they think that it's
cheaper to buy transit from someone than it is to peer, they're more than
capable of doing so.
> They then release a new version of something that uses more
> bandwidth (say, going to HD video and then maybe 3D HD at some point)
> which puts pressure on the ISPs network resources. Do you then increase
> prices to the consumer in a highly competitive market and run the risk
> of driving your customers away, do you absorb the cost of required
> upgrades and run at a loss for a while only to see the applications
> increase in bandwidth requirements again?
The customer's requesting this traffic, therefore the customer needs a
bigger pipe, therefore the customer pays more.
> Do you try to get the content provider to pay for some of the "shipping"
> cost?
Why? It was your customer who requested the traffic be delivered to them.
- Matt
