[94410] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Sun Jan 21 16:31:29 2007
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:19:04 +0000
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: "Steve Gibbard" <scg@gibbard.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20070121115953.J69808@sprockets.gibbard.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_166453_11096316.1169414344042
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Gibbard:
It seems like if there's an issue here it's that different parties
have different
self-interests, and those whose interests aren't being served
> aren't passing on the costs to the decision makers. The users'
> performance interests are served by getting the fastest downloads
> possible. The ISP's financial interests would be served by their flat
> rate customers getting their data from somewhere close by. If it becomes
> enough of a problem that the ISPs are motivated to deal with it, one
> approach would be to get the customers' financial interests better
> aligned with their own, with differentiated billing for local and long
> distance traffic.
That could be seen as a confiscation of a major part of the value customers
derive from ISPs.
Perth, on the West Coast of Australia, claims to be the world's most
> isolated "capitol" city (for some definition of capitol). Next closest is
> probably Adelaide, at 1300 miles. Jakarta and Sydney are both 2,000 miles
> away. Getting stuff, including data, in and out is expensive. Like
> Seattle, Perth has many of its ISPs in the same downtown sky scraper, and
> a very active exchange point in the building. It is much cheaper for ISPs
> to hand off local traffic to each other than to hand off long distance
> traffic to their far away transit providers. Like ISPs in a lot of
> similar places, the ISPs in Perth charge their customers different rates
> for cheap local bandwidth than for expensive long distance bandwidth.
>
> When I was in Perth a couple of years ago, I asked my usual questions
> about what effect this billing arrangement was having on user behavior.
> I was told about a Perth-only file sharing network. Using the same file
> sharing networks as the rest of the world was expensive, as they would end
> up hauling lots of data over the expensive long distance links and users
> didn't want to pay for that. Instead, they'd put together their own,
> which only allowed local users and thus guaranteed that uploads and
> downloads would happen at cheap local rates.
>
> Googling for more information just now, what I found were lots of stories
> about police raids, so I'm not sure if it's still operational.
Brendan Behan: There is no situation that cannot be made worse by the
presence of a policeman.
-Steve
>
------=_Part_166453_11096316.1169414344042
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Gibbard:<br><br>It seems like if there's an issue here it's that different parties have <div>different self-interests, and those whose interests aren't being served<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
aren't passing on the costs to the decision makers. The users'<br>performance interests are served by getting the fastest downloads<br>possible. The ISP's financial interests would be served by their flat<br>
rate customers getting their data from somewhere close by. If it becomes<br>enough of a problem that the ISPs are motivated to deal with it, one<br>approach would be to get the customers' financial interests better<br>
aligned with their own, with differentiated billing for local and long<br>distance traffic.</blockquote><div><br>That could be seen as a confiscation of a major part of the value customers derive from ISPs.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Perth, on the West Coast of Australia, claims to be the world's most<br>isolated "capitol" city (for some definition of capitol). Next closest is<br>probably Adelaide, at 1300 miles. Jakarta and Sydney are both 2,000 miles
<br>away. Getting stuff, including data, in and out is expensive. Like<br>Seattle, Perth has many of its ISPs in the same downtown sky scraper, and<br>a very active exchange point in the building. It is much cheaper for ISPs
<br>to hand off local traffic to each other than to hand off long distance<br>traffic to their far away transit providers. Like ISPs in a lot of<br>similar places, the ISPs in Perth charge their customers different rates
<br>for cheap local bandwidth than for expensive long distance bandwidth.<br><br>When I was in Perth a couple of years ago, I asked my usual questions<br>about what effect this billing arrangement was having on user behavior.
<br>I was told about a Perth-only file sharing network. Using the same file<br>sharing networks as the rest of the world was expensive, as they would end<br>up hauling lots of data over the expensive long distance links and users
<br>didn't want to pay for that. Instead, they'd put together their own,<br>which only allowed local users and thus guaranteed that uploads and<br>downloads would happen at cheap local rates.<br><br>Googling for more information just now, what I found were lots of stories
<br>about police raids, so I'm not sure if it's still operational. </blockquote><div><br>Brendan Behan: There is no situation that cannot be made worse by the presence of a policeman. <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
-Steve<br></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_166453_11096316.1169414344042--
