Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: peering charges?
From: Dirk Harms-Merbitz <dirk () power net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:56:18 -0800 (PST)


Whatever you do, don't overlap old acronyms with new meanings if you don't
absolutely have to, i.e. don't call content providers IP. Call them CP or
something like that.

Dirk

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jim McManus wrote:

|} Or...since the business model of many (but not all) major web sites is
|} related to advertising, they should pay isp's for access to their
|} audience (client base of isp).  It is the audience that makes the web
|} site more valuable....not the other way around. 

Who says the business model won't shift?  It has for ISPs.  Once everyone
(well, almost everyone) was peering or pursuing peering with everyone
else, that's no longer the case.  Some ISPs are still somewhat reasonable
(e.g. you're spending $1M/yr with us for other services so we'll peer with
you). 

What if web site, or content business models change?  What if people deem
their content so valuable that besides (or rather than) charging the
consumer, they want to charge the network provider access to the content?
(ala MTV)  If you look hard at the economics, it's very hard to make huge
revenues on advertising alone. 

IP makes content, IP sells content to distributor, distributor distributes
content to consumer and/or resells content to other distributor for
another tier of consumers or re-branding.


-jh-

IP = Information Provider


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault