[LINK] compelling Content wrecks broadband (was Volume charging)
Tue Nov 26 06:05:10 EST 2002
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:50:40AM +1100, Richard Archer wrote:
> At 9:42 +1100 26/11/02, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >why should they charge the ABC (or whoever) to provide content that
> >they are also charging their customers to receive?
> I wonder how much of the ABC's content passes out an international
> link? In which case settlement on the traffic would (if such
> settlement actually existed) be at international rates (like a
> fraction of a cent per MB) rather than the local multi-cent per MB
that's what routers are for. the ABC would still have their paid-for
transit link to their ISP or ISPs, plus they would have peering links*
with specific ISPs (some of whom may be the same ISPs they are also
paying for transit)....only traffic destined for the peer ISP would go
via the peering links.
(*) probably via a single link to a router at a common location, the
> >the local content industry in australia is not going to take off until
> >a) volume charging is replaced by pipe-size charging for both
> >"providers" AND "consumers"(*)
> Why is that? I cannot see any effective difference between volume
> charging and pipe-size charging.
fixed cost. you know what it is going to cost you, and you can plan
accordingly - and you know how much it is going to cost you if you need
to upgrade to a bigger link. no billing surprises caused by
enthusiastic users, and no billing surprises caused by script-kiddies
> The only catch would be that some people like to run their pipe at 40%
> capacity and others at 80%.
and the people who do that end up with congested links and lose their
users/subscribers because everyone wants near-instant response times.
> So, people who bog down their links, thus publishing their compelling
> content at a snail's pace would be subsidised by publishers who
> maintain adequate pipes.
i really don't see how subsidies come into it. presumably the pipes
will be priced at a level that is a) reasonable and b) profitable for
the seller (and for the buyer too).
if they aren't, that's a flaw in the current pricing system, not in
the idea of fixed-price pipes.
> > and b) peering agreements are made with large content providers and
> > competing ISPs and hosting services.
> Amen to that, brother!
huh? peering agreements are basically charging by pipe-size. both
sides pay for their end of the pipe (or one peer pays for both ends is
what often happens if there is a big difference in size of the parties
or the benefits they expect to gain), and data exchange over that link
isn't billed. the benefit is that both parties get access to
the other party's resources, users, services, etc over a fixed-cost
pipe rather than volume charged.
there are other ways of doing it, but that's the most common. IMO,
other ways of doing it aren't actually peering, they are a
craig sanders <email@example.com>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
More information about the Link