nanog mailing list archives
Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones
From: David Charlap <david.charlap () marconi com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:26:52 -0400
David Schwartz wrote:
John Olp wrote:The argument that multicast should be billed based on the number of receivers is flawed. Those receivers are already being billed based on the bandwidth they use regardless of source.They are billed by their ISP for the traffic they receive. This doesn't cover the cost of sending the data to them on the sourcing ISP. This is why you pay for both traffic you send and for traffic you receive. Both cost your provider money to do for you.
Nice bit of double-billing. One packet traverses the network, and two people pay for it. -- David
Current thread:
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones, (continued)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Deepak Jain (Jun 09)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Jared Mauch (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Christopher Johnston (Jun 13)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Marshall Eubanks (Jun 13)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones John Olp (Jun 14)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 14)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones John Olp (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones John Olp (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Steve Schaefer (Jun 15)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Charlap (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 15)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Howe (Jun 15)
- RE: Multicast Traffic on Backbones David Schwartz (Jun 15)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Joshua Goodall (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Tim Winders (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Joshua Goodall (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Tim Winders (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Michael Whisenant (Jun 10)
- Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones Eric Gauthier (Jun 10)