nanog mailing list archives
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:23:09 -0500
On 9/17/2010 10:17 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Also, Google, Yahoo, et al tend to base their peering decisions on technical, not business, standards, which makes sense because peering, above all other interconnect types, is mutually beneficial to both parties. More to the point, even the likes of Comcast won't shut down their peers to Yahoo because Google sends them a check.
I disagree. Minimum throughput for wasting a port on a router is a business reason, not technical. Peering is all about business and equal equity. Not to say that technical reasons don't play a part. Limitations of throughput requires some peering, but there is definitely a business model attached to it to determine the equity of the peers.
And I do agree, a private peer is definitely one technical means by which this prioritization could happen, but that's not the practice today.
Penny saved is a penny earned. Peering is generally cheaper than transit. In addition, it usually provides higher class of service. Money doesn't have to change hands for there to be value attached to the action. At the same time, when money does change hands, the paying party feels they are getting something of value.
Is it unfair that I pay streaming sites to get more/earlier video feeds over the free users? I still have to deal with advertisements in some cases, which generates the primary revenue for the streaming site. Why shouldn't a content provider be able to pay for a higher class of service, so long as others are equally allowed to pay for it?
Jack
Current thread:
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?, (continued)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? George Bonser (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Chris Woodfield (Sep 16)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? George Bonser (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? William Herrin (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? sthaug (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? William Herrin (Sep 16)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 16)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Nathan Eisenberg (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Chris Woodfield (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Chris Woodfield (Sep 17)
- RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Drew Weaver (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Michael Dillon (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? JC Dill (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Jack Bates (Sep 17)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? JC Dill (Sep 18)
- Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? Bill Stewart (Sep 19)