nanog mailing list archives
Re: peering charges?
From: Jim McManus <jmcmanus () UU NET>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:37:29 -0500
Or...since the business model of many (but not all) major web sites is related to advertising, they should pay isp's for access to their audience (client base of isp). It is the audience that makes the web site more valuable....not the other way around. Jim At 12:11 AM 1/26/97 -0800, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote: |} There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to |} relative worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large |} ISPs are generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume |} of mutual traffic. Large ISPs should probably be interested in access to content, without it their users could find the Internet a very boring place. -jh-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: peering charges?, (continued)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? John (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Jon Zeeff (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Alex.Bligh (Jan 28)
- Re: peering charges? Jeff Young (Jan 29)
- Re: peering charges? John (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Dave O'Shea (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Jim McManus (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Jonathan Heiliger (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Todd Graham Lewis (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Daryn D. Fisher (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Michael Dillon (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Jonathan Heiliger (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? J. Malcolm (Jan 26)