nanog mailing list archives
Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic
From: bdragon () gweep net
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
<snip>
I sympathize with the customer. There is no reason he should pay for traffic he did not request and does not want. If unwanted traffic raises your cost of providing the service for which you are paid (providing wanted traffic) then you should raise your rates.
<snip> Then why should _I_ bear the cost of traffic destined to you? Somebody has to pay, and I'ld rather you pay for it, you seem to believe that I (and all of the rest of PROVIDER's customers should pay). Which is more or less fair?
Current thread:
- Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Raymond, Steven (Aug 27)
- Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 27)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic David Schwartz (Aug 27)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 28)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic David Schwartz (Aug 28)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 28)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic David Schwartz (Aug 27)
- Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic bdragon (Aug 31)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic David Schwartz (Aug 31)
- Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Omachonu Ogali (Aug 31)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic David Schwartz (Aug 31)
- Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 27)
- Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Omachonu Ogali (Aug 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic JC Dill (Aug 29)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic David Schwartz (Aug 29)