--------- And the biggest question of all. The USA is still the largest net exporter of data bits in the world. How much should US providers be paying non-USA providers to accept the bits? Right now, other than some NSF-funded connectivity such as Sprint ICM, most non-USA commercial networks must pay the full cost of the inter-continental circuits. Should the Internet adopt a charging model like international voice settlements. --------- John, I have been discussing the model mentioned about with some forgein PTTs that are in the internet buiz. I think it is fair especially since I believe for the moment that capital would be flowing in my direction for the moment. I thought it was fair and there were several ways to try and work the deal. Perhaps having a large carrier be a transit AS for me in say Japan wouldnt be such a bad way to expand. This was all just rough talk but I was interested. Obviously expanding backbones to go international quickly has it's pluses. I think partnerships are the way to go unless you are monopolistic and that is only beneficial short term. Dave At 3:14 AM -0000 8/25/98, Sean Donelan wrote:
jcurran@bbnplanet.COM (John Curran) writes:
p.s. The fact that the sender of traffic should be paying some portion of the resulting costs is not a surprise to anyone; many of the content companies that I've spoken to believe they already are paying more as traffic increases, and were quite surprised to find that it doesn't actually make it to the networks which bear the brunt of the traffic carriage.
As someone who pays to carry traffic to both coasts, and pays to carry traffic from both coasts to the center of the country and other places where I notice very few large providers seem to exchange traffic I am perpetually amused by this recurring discussion.
If I read Mr. Curran's statement at face value I would assume networks such as DRANET which are net importers of data, and pick up the data on both coasts networks would expect to start receiving payments from large providers with large web hosting centers in cities such as Cambridge.
I look at maps such as http://www.bbnplanet.com/products/maps/us_host.htm and see a network which is strong in some areas, and very weak in other areas. St. Louis seems to be a gaping hole in many large providers. Sure, the sales people always say "don't worry, any day we'll have capacity there soon" but if you want something today we have to pay our way to an outer edge of the country. Even if the network shows a "dot" in the middle of the country, when you investigate further, I've usually found limited facilities.
I'm sorry if I sound cynical. But I've been down this road of ever changing requirements too many times. "Best-Exit" used to be the norm, I even have a mail message from a Sprint engineer prohibiting "Hot potato" routing if I wanted to peer with Sprint. Then the requirements changed, I modified our network to comply, and the other provider of interest comes up with a different requirement to justify it isn't a "peer" because something is "unequal." The fact is, no two networks are equal in every way.
How do you compare networks with large consumer access, web hosting, or large numbers of dedicated access customers? How do you compare a network with a large backbone in the continental USA with a network with a smaller backbone in the USA plus Canada? Or how to you compare a network with lots of transatlantic connectivity, but little cross-USA backbone or trans-pacific connectivity.
And the biggest question of all. The USA is still the largest net exporter of data bits in the world. How much should US providers be paying non-USA providers to accept the bits? Right now, other than some NSF-funded connectivity such as Sprint ICM, most non-USA commercial networks must pay the full cost of the inter-continental circuits. Should the Internet adopt a charging model like international voice settlements. Will we see the rise of 'call-back' services on the Internet based on asymmetric charges for inbound and outbound data flows? The simple way to avoid people 'working' the system is to keep charges as close as possible to the actual costs, so there is no incentive. But shareholders prefer companies that operate well above the marginal cost, so you see companies trying to create a pricing model which allows them to charge above cost.
I like profit too, but other than certain regulated monopolies and software companies, in a competitive market with low barriers to entry profit margins are going to be narrow. One way to increase the 'spread' is to to raise your competitors costs and make it difficult for new providers to enter the market. Internal network design requirements of the other providers network seem to be the most popular, e.g. you must put pipes of certain sizes into certain locations even if it doesn't make design sense.
I've noticed that most of the newest competitors trying to enter the market in the last year have resorted to buying a provider with an existing peering agreement because it was virtually impossible for the new competitor to get peering with some large providers, Level 3->Geonet, Qwest->Eunet, and then pumping up the size of the pipes through those existing interconnect.
I've long said I'll agree to any settlement scheme, so long as it is reciprocal. The problem I've seen with most of the schemes going back to the ANS CO+RE charges has been the one-way nature of the settlements. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
Thank you, David Diaz Chief Technical Officer Netrail, Inc email: davediaz@netrail.net pager: 888-576-1018 office: 888-NETRAIL Colo facilities: Atlanta-NAP, Miami, Arlington, Chicago, San Francisco 888-NETRAIL for further information