[129831] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Tue Sep 21 09:51:05 2010
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <201009211312.o8LDCBiT021940@aurora.sol.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:50:53 -0400
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 21, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Joe Greco 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. 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.
> [...]
>> In that light I can see where they might want a fee. But a better =
way
>> of looking at it is not in prioritizing anyone up, look at it the =
other
>> way. Imagine an ISP says "if you don't pay us, we are going to
>> prioritize your traffic down". So anyone who pays gets their traffic =
at
>> the normal default priority, those who don't pay get in the "space
>> available" line. Now a content provider who does not pay the toll =
sees
>> a drop in users which equates to a possible drop in ad revenue.
>=20
> There's a huge risk in this.
>=20
> Service providers have to recognize that their customers have already
> paid for access; when I pay a provider for an "Internet" connection, I
> am not paying them to deprioritize the destination I'm trying to =
reach,
> and that would be an epic fail of "best effort".
>=20
> Content providers already pay fees. No content is generated and =
served
> entirely for free. Even in a "free peering" model, electricity costs
> money, cooling costs money, space costs money, servers cost money, and
> meeting some network's peering requirements generally involves peering
> at multiple locations. Content authors usually prefer to be paid, net
> ops people usually prefer to be paid, system admins usually prefer to =
be
> paid, etc. Content providers pay a lot.
>=20
+1
> There are some key bits that people miss about all of this.
>=20
> First off, Internet Service Providers get customers because people =
want
> access to all this fantastic content that's out on the Internet. No
> Yahoo!, no Google, no YouTube, no Facebook, no Netflix, none of that?
> Can you honestly tell me that customers would keep their subscriptions
> to a service provider without anywhere to go? Is it the content=20
> providers who are getting a free ride? Or is it the Internet Service=20=
> Providers? Perhaps they're a symbiotic relationship.
>=20
> Next, content providers are generally already paying their own Service
> Providers for access to the Internet. That might be a Cogent or a
> Hurricane or a ServerCentral. This covers most of the "small fry". A
> large guy like Google may have settlement-free peering with eyeball=20
> networks, but then again, they've invested an incredible amount of=20
> money in being a destination your customers want to get to... the =
truth
> of the matter is you, your customer, and Google all benefit from it.
>=20
Every content provider, large or small, in my experience pays for =
Internet. Where the checks go to may vary (dark fiber vs colo charges vs =
ISP payments vs ...), but every content provider has (or has service =
providers that have) some sort of contractual arrangement with the =
entities they connect to and has spent money based on that. Sure, those =
contracts can be mutually renegotiated, prices may go up or down, etc., =
but letting third parties interfere with these arrangements sets a very =
dangerous precedent that cannot be good for the Internet as a whole =
(again, IMO).
Regards
Marshall
> Finally, there's a risk that this double-edged sword could slice back=20=
> at service providers. Content networks often raise funds through
> advertising. What happens when one day, some network (*cough =
ESPN360*),=20
> decides that a *SERVICE PROVIDER* should pay for the privilege of
> getting access to their content? I mean, after all, two can play at
> the game of holding the ISP's subscribers hostage, and in many areas,
> subscribers do have a choice between at least two service providers,
> in case their first choice sucks. I don't think we want this, but it
> could be a natural backlash. What if Google came to you and said "you
> will pay us a dollar per sub per month, or we will route all your
> traffic through a 56k link in Timbuktu"? Would most eyeball networks
> even have a realistic *choice*?
>=20
> At the end of the day, after stripping away all the distractions, the
> concept of prioritizing traffic looks to me like something that is
> ultimately intended to squeeze more revenue out of the network, and
> this happens by not giving the customer some of what they have already
> paid for: in other words, this happens at the customer's expense.
>=20
> ... JG
> --=20
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - =
http://www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] =
then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail =
spam(CNN)
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many =
apples.
>=20
>=20
