Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: peering charges?
From: Pushpendra Mohta <pushp () CERF NET>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:40:08 -0800 (PST)

I agree with with the information provider model.  Ultimately, entities
with attractive content will be selling access to wide area providers, who
will sell it to local area providers, who will sell it to customers.  This
is the old "gatekeeper.dec.com" model extended to fee-based content.  I
heard that Microsoft was letting providers terminate T3's with them since
good access to Microsoft's content is a selling point for an access
provider's customer base.  Why should such a content provider have to buy
peering, or pay wide area telecom costs?  On the other hand, right now
Microsoft is still effectively buying transit, and at some point they will
just charge for access to their content and let other people charge each
other for indirect access to that content.

And Microsoft is just the first/largest.

Why indeed. Should any content provider pay for distribution costs 
of its content via Fedex/UPS/USPS or the phone company ?  Costs
of content distribution are hardly a new problem. Just the distribution
transport (Internet) is new.

Business people use a simple principle to decide who pays. Its called
"Follow The Money" (FTM). 

Any one who gains from a transaction involving transfer of content
has an incentive to share not only in the costs of the content but also
in the costs of its distribution. 

Content is valuable, but has little value without distribution. 
(Oil has high intrinsic value, but even that value is variable
subject to presence or absence of pipelines and pumping stations. Even
a limitless supply of oil would be worthless without a distribution

  By Date           By Thread  

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