peering charges?

Dirk Harms-Merbitz dirk at
Mon Jan 27 00:56:18 UTC 1997

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.


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

More information about the NANOG mailing list