6 comments

• 

  Brooke

  2 years ago

  Tim, I think the bigger issue that you aren't wrapping your head around is that you're assuming that the network will always operate exactly as it does today. This is a 30 year old technology we're talking about that hasn't seen any real change to its basic operating protocols. To assume that the way it works now is the best possible way for it to continue working is woefully shortsighted, I think. End-to-end and TCP aren't written in stone, and from my understanding, the only reason they're so revered is because they are simply what is.

  I'm frankly pretty shocked that you're taking an if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it approach to innovation, of all things.
• 

  lippard

  2 years ago

  Brooke:
  
  I don't see how your comment is a response to what Tim said, which is about contractual business arrangements, not protocols.
  
  Tim:
  
  I think you're exactly right--I fully expect to see established standards for inter-provider QoS and the negotiation of peering agreements which include terms for settlement on a per-class basis. Providers who see an equal value in exchanging traffic at the highest class of service will do so on a settlement-free basis; that may not (and probably won't be) identical to the current relationships providers for best-effort Internet traffic. A provider that is tier one for best-effort Internet may not be tier one for assured or enhanced levels of service.
  
  Your description of the type of customers that the top providers have is more-or-less accurate, but it is a little bit more complex than that, because there are lots of major consumer providers that purchase transit from providers in the "mostly serve business customers" category. For example, while Global Crossing has businesses as direct customers, those businesses include some very large consumer ISPs (mostly outside of the U.S.).
  
  It makes sense for customers to only pay their direct providers for higher classes of service--the situation of Google directly paying AT&T; for enhanced service would likely only occur where there is a direct customer relationship between them as well.
• 

  Brooke

  2 years ago

  Well, I have no quarrel with his thoughts on contractual arrangements. I'm simply making the observation that as in his last post, he is assuming that everything in networking technology will remain as it is now. In the interest of being germane, I'll add that protocols might--and likely will--change, possibly rendering the discussion on contractual business arrangements as they exist today irrelevant in predicting future outcomes.
  
  Perhaps I'm too much of a non-expert in this area for my own good. Perhaps I'm having too easy a time imagining paradigmatic shifts in networking technology that seem outside the realm of possibility to someone more knowledgeable about the state of current technology.
• 

  eee_eff

  2 years ago

  Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Comcast imposes a half-second delay into the loading of any website that doesn't pay a special high-speed access fee. The fee might be $1 for every 100,000 page views. This website gets roughly 100,000 page views per month, so we'd owe about $1/month to Comcast if we wanted to avoid having our site load slowly for Comcast customers. A site like Techdirt, which gets roughly 100 times as much traffic as we do, would owe Comcast about $100/month if it didn't want its traffic slowed. Google, which gets 100,000 times as much traffic as us, would have to pay about $100,000 per month. Clearly, such a scheme could bring in tens of millions of dollars in additional revenue each year.
  
  What this will destroy is the dynamism of the web--now a start up won't have as much of a comparative advantage to the established playrs, as that start up will have to pay for their interconnection to the web. Google went from nothing to being a major player in just a couple of years, and created much value in the process.
  
  I think we need to think of the internet as basic infrastructure, and stop trying to erect toll boths.
• 

  randomtruth

  2 years ago

  Peerage is an interesting model to use Tim. However, you can't forget switching costs. It is not cheap or instantaneous to move from one provider to the next. And with a bit of lock-in comes leverage. Ergo, IMHO, something must be keeping the various tiers of ISPs from screwing each other in some way on peerage costs (and don't tell me it's ethics). It may be that they all own fragments of the network, so are all co-dependent, with little money actually changing hands. Perhaps the general legislation about predatory pricing & price fixing are enough to keep them honest too.
  
  So, is there enough already existing legislation to solve these predatory scenarios?:
  
  1. Consumer pays a mega premium because there's no other bband choice in their area.
  
  2. Content provider with a service that is directly competitive to a service offered by ISP is diminished in some way: latency, $, defamation, etc.
• 

  Tim

  2 years ago

  Enigma: I agree! I was simply offering it as a hypothetical to explore how it might play out. The point of my post (Which I may not have made very clearly) is that in practice, such a scheme wouldn't be profitable for ISPs.