Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
patrick at namesecure.com
Mon Aug 24 20:49:04 UTC 1998
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, John Curran wrote:
> At 12:12 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >To some extent that's true. However, as a counter-point, consider such
> >sites as sunsite, wustl, smc.vnet.net, etc. I doubt those sites would
> >continue to exist in a solely bandwidth sensitive pay-as-you-go world.
> >I think they count on flat rate connectivity to be able to continue
> >to exist. I don't think the elimination of those sites (and many others
> >like them) would benefit the net. Do you?
> I'm not certain that they represent a true public service, as opposed
> to simply interesting content. Interesting content can probably pay its
> own way, even at retail prices. For example, the incremental cost to
> send 10MB of data is only about 50 cents using normal retail rates .
> Are you saying that whatever you're downloading isn't worth paying that?
> (or watching the appropriate number of web ads, as I currently do to
> download palm pilot apps, pc freeware, and today's weather gif?)
Are you saying that someone should be forced to pay for the privilege of
offering something for free to your customers? Things that your customers,
who I number among are requesting?
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
Systems Administrator (925) 377-1212 v
NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
More information about the NANOG