Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement

[John Curran <jcurran () bbnplanet com>]

At 12:12 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> ...
> To some extent that's true.  However, as a counter-point, consider such
> sites as sunsite, wustl, smc.vnet.net, etc.  I doubt those sites would
> continue to exist in a solely bandwidth sensitive pay-as-you-go world.
> I think they count on flat rate connectivity to be able to continue
> to exist.  I don't think the elimination of those sites (and many others
> like them) would benefit the net.  Do you?

I'm not certain that they represent a true public service, as opposed
to simply interesting content.  Interesting content can probably pay its 
own way, even at retail prices.   For example, the incremental cost to 
send 10MB of data is only about 50 cents using normal retail rates [1].
Are you saying that whatever you're downloading isn't worth paying that?
(or watching the appropriate number of web ads, as I currently do to 
download palm pilot apps, pc freeware, and today's weather gif?)

/John 

[1]  Retail T1 transit from major backbone, fully utilized, $2400 monthly,
     presuming cost recovery over 4 peak hours of 20 business days = $30
     per peak hour; each hour good for about 600 MB -> 5 cents / MB )