On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Sean Butler wrote:
My argument was that in addition to the peering settlement charges, each network would charge their customers for the traffic they generate.
Since you are proposing a receiver pays system there is less motivation for networks to charge the sender. In fact, they would probably pay the sender.
customers site. (I'll provide them with an itemized bill that lets them see what cost so much and why.)
HA. Very funny. You really intend to send out billing notices to your clients that detail each web transaction they did? So you intend to send you ISP customers the equivalent of an inverted access_log file which they will in turn send to each dialup customer? For a single T1 this data runs in the range of 1 GB per day. The cost of handling this billing information is non zero and the cost of reviewing it is non zero. Also, the difference necessary for revenue enhancement wouldn't have to be a 20:1 ratio compared to existing web site size. Even 2:1 would be quite lucrative. This make it more or less impossible for people to feret out of your proposed billing statement anyway. (Did I vist that web site last month 4 times or 8 times??? and is it a small or big site anyway?) Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+