Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Mon Sep 13 16:58:46 UTC 2010

On 09/13/2010 06:28 AM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
> Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are against it when it comes to net access.
> Sent from my iPhone 4.
> On Sep 13, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Hank Nussbacher<hank at efes.iucc.ac.il>  wrote:
>> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic

This genie has long since escaped the bottle, hasn't it? I remember the voip wars of the
late 90's where there was lots and lots and lots of hand wringing about qos... but how much
penetration does RSVP have, say? Approximately zero? And that's because, in reality, voice is
a tiny fraction of net traffic and all of the visions of RSVP and AAL2 and TCRTP and all
of the rest of the crazy things have basically come to naught. Does Skype care about qos? It
doesn't even care about RTP.

So the new bete noir is video and it's easier to be seduced because the traffic volumes are
potentially horrific. But i'll place my money on the bet that by the time any scheme to wring
money out of that volume could be implemented, the pipes transporting it will be asking what
all the hand wringing is about. Just like voice. The human and technological complications
of grafting qos/settlement on top of the net are huge in comparison to stuffing more bits into

Mike, brute force and ignorance always wins

More information about the NANOG mailing list