On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rubens Kuhl" <rubensk@gmail.com>
Isn't the real problem with global multicast: "How do we ultimately bill the broadcaster for all that traffic amplification that happened *inside* every other AS?" It seems like you'd have to do per-packet accounting at every router, and coordinate billing/reporting amongst all providers that saw those packets.
Broadcast encrypted streams. Unicast the key distribution, allowing interested parties to count, bill, block, allow, litigate, agree...
And that's the snap answer, yes. But the *load*, while admittedly lessened over unicast, falls *mostly* to the carriers, who cannot anymore bill for it, either to end users, providers, *or* as transit.
Why not ? One can set conditions for doing multicast replication prior to doing it, and they might include payment for services. We don`t have a global Multicast RP for everyone to use, each operator chooses if, how and when multicast streams are going into their RPs.
Will they not complain about having their equipment utilization go up with no recompense -- for something that is only of benefit to commercial customers of some other entity?
Unicast streaming has done it already, as Vladis pointed out... Rubens