nanog mailing list archives
RE: peering charges?
From: "Danny Stroud" <dannystroud () msn com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 06:51:11 UT
I empathize with your angst over the charging issues. But the answer is in microeconomics. Those that have something that others want can charge for it. Those that want it pay. If you want to get to a network bad enough you will pay for it-one way or another. The concept of transit is not very different from what people are now referring to as settlement charges. The magic is in making your network a more desirable destination than the other guys. In many industries there are often "surrogates" for value that are used to set pricing. Per minute charges in wireless (cellular, PCS, etc.) is and example. Not all minutes are of equal economic value but for the most part you pay the same rate whether you are talking to your mother or closing a billion dollar business deal. I suspect that the ease of anointing bandwidth as a surrogate for value will make it so until someone is able to measure the economic value of an individual packet or web page hit. Until then I predict that the networks with the biggest infrastructure will be in the best position to extract peering charges. Batten the hatches, the onslaught of change is upon us. I suspect that this is the first of many economic model changes in the Internet. des Danny E. Stroud President GES Internet ---------- From: owner-nanog () merit edu on behalf of Vadim Antonov Sent: Sunday, January 26, 1997 12:54 AM To: davec () ziplink net; madison () queber acsi net Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: peering charges? Eric D. Madison wrote:
Since some of the larger vendors (Cisco mostly) has introduced accounting features into their software settlements could start any time.
a) the accounting was there for years, so what b) a 100-byte packet travelled from provider A to provider B. Should A pay to B or vice versa? So far nobody gave any useful answer to that question. 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. --vadim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: peering charges?, (continued)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? J. Malcolm (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Craig Nordin (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Paul A Vixie (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 26)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Alex.Bligh (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? maillists (Jan 26)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 26)
- RE: peering charges? Danny Stroud (Jan 26)
- RE: peering charges? Mike Leber (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Sean Donelan (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Pushpendra Mohta (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Pushpendra Mohta (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Mike Leber (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Pushpendra Mohta (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- RE: peering charges? Michael Dillon (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Vadim Antonov (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Alex.Bligh (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Jan 27)
- Re: peering charges? Alex.Bligh (Jan 27)