nanog mailing list archives

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?


From: JC Dill <jcdill.lists () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:27:21 -0700

Dave Sparro wrote:

I just don't see a way to get passed the current impasse.
The consumers are saying "I want faster, as long as I don't have to pay more." Content providers are saying, "If consumers had faster, I'd be able to invent 'Killer App'. I sure wish the ISPs would upgrade their networks." ISPs are saying, "Why should we upgrade our networks, nobody is willing to pay us to do so."

I predict a future where major content providers (MCPs) (such as Google, or Yahoo or MSN) offer customers access for free[1]. When you enroll in free MCP internet access, MCP content and apps will stream to you as fast as their network can possibly get them to you. What MCPs will do with content that comes from other networks is another question.

One reason traffic shaping hasn't caught on yet is that it hasn't been beneficial to the people selling access to slow down traffic (which is the only way to shape traffic). Their bean counters keep thinking there's a market behind this service, but each time they try to create a market, someone else simply says "here, I'll get *everything* to you as fast as possible[2], why get your access from that other guy?". This was the Above.net model. So, when one of the MCPs (e.g. Google) comes out with their own access product (which will happen sooner or later), will they find that there's a market to give consumers faster access to Google's content? Or, will Yahoo or MSN or Facebook decide to give customers a product where they get everyone's content as fast as possible, thus negating the value of the free service from Google (or whoever) that is only as fast as possible for that company's content?

My bet is on the above.net model - as soon as someone puts up a service with different speeds depending on where the content comes from, someone else will come out with a service that is everything, as fast as possible, and that second offering will win. The technology to stream everything as fast as possible will not be that much more expensive than the technology to provide different speeds for different sources, and the customer will flock to the "everything as fast as possible" offerings.

jc

[1] And then once everyone is getting their consumer access for free, will they start paying consumers to sign up with their service? We are getting quite close to this in other areas, such as "fill out this form get a free coupon"....

[2] Sonic.net is offering "as fast as we can get it to you" now (for one price, no more tiered service for tiered pricing) to home customers in the SF Bay Area.


Current thread: