Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
jbates at brightok.net
Fri Sep 17 16:23:09 UTC 2010
On 9/17/2010 10:17 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> Also, Google, Yahoo, et al tend to base their peering decisions on technical, not business, standards, which makes sense because peering, above all other interconnect types, is mutually beneficial to both parties. More to the point, even the likes of Comcast won't shut down their peers to Yahoo because Google sends them a check.
I disagree. Minimum throughput for wasting a port on a router is a
business reason, not technical. Peering is all about business and equal
equity. Not to say that technical reasons don't play a part. Limitations
of throughput requires some peering, but there is definitely a business
model attached to it to determine the equity of the peers.
> And I do agree, a private peer is definitely one technical means by which this prioritization could happen, but that's not the practice today.
Penny saved is a penny earned. Peering is generally cheaper than
transit. In addition, it usually provides higher class of service. Money
doesn't have to change hands for there to be value attached to the
action. At the same time, when money does change hands, the paying party
feels they are getting something of value.
Is it unfair that I pay streaming sites to get more/earlier video feeds
over the free users? I still have to deal with advertisements in some
cases, which generates the primary revenue for the streaming site. Why
shouldn't a content provider be able to pay for a higher class of
service, so long as others are equally allowed to pay for it?
More information about the NANOG