mailing list archives
Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:26:10 +0100 (BST)
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Raymond, Steven wrote:
Have received complaints from usage-based-billing Internet customers lately
about not wanting to pay for the nuisance traffic caused by worm-of-the-day.
I believe that in the case of a short-duration, targeted attack that can be
eventually be stopped, a billing credit is probably appropriate. But what
about these current plagues that go on for weeks or forever- what is your
Some simply want the traffic filtered in our routers- permanently. That is
my least favorite option. Others want to simply not be billed for "bad"
traffic. My reaction is to suggest that metered billing is probably not for
you, then. But I could of course sympathize if I were footing the bill.
What are other network operators doing about this issue, if it is an issue
for them at all?
Well imho the simple way to look at this is that short bursts are generally
swallowed up by the network and the upstreams and not charging is fine however
for sustained traffic .. days or weeks or forever its different, if you didnt
charge any customer for the increased bandwidth and load then you have to foot
the cost of the network and equipment upgrades and that is surely wrong?
I mean if the traffic were unrealistically to increase so that bad traffic was
50% of all traffic we would all have to double our circuit and router capacity
and you either pass that cost on directly (charge for extra usage) or indirectly
(increase the $ per Mb) to the user.
I think you're right to say that if thats not acceptable to the user then usage
based billing should be avoided for them but ultimately they will still incur
the cost as you increase prices over time to foot the cost of increasing
Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Keptin Komrade Dr. BobWrench III esq. (Aug 28)