North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Paying for delivery of packets (was about Sprint Peering, and Importance of Content)
JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700 JD> From: JC Dill JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for JD> those receiving said packets, much in the way that 800 JD> numbers are funded in the telephone system. In order for JD> that to work, we will need a settlement system. I predict JD> that something like this will start happening before JD> 12/2005. Agreed, except is any fancy settlement really needed? I predict asymmetric pricing. Consider peering ratios. I know of at least one up-and-coming provider (currently in SJC, IAD, and NYC as I recall) that gives free core-to-edge bandwidth in a effort to meet ingress:egress quotas. Some established providers will entertain asymmetric pricing, too. Content hosting can be moved to large cities. Easy. Saves money. Many people do it. Viewers cannot be herded into the big cities. It seems that eyeballs are more distributed, and content is more localized to the large MSAs. We therefore have asymmetric traffic flows, with more leaving large metro areas. Surplus edge-to-core bandwidth means cheaper edge-to-core bandwidth, unless fiber/wavelengths get provisioned asymmetrically to model the traffic flows. >From a political standpoint, it's easier to get a business to pay an extra <x> per month to deliver their content than it is to get Joe Public to pay an extra $10/mo for premium access. I think 12/2005 is conservative. Industry fallout begins settling, and we see interesting tactics from "new breed" upstarts run by laid-off engineers with a bit of money and a bunch of clue. Beginning of 2005, significant presence by the end of the year. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <email@example.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.