Or...since the business model of many (but not all) major web sites is related to advertising, they should pay isp's for access to their audience (client base of isp). It is the audience that makes the web site more valuable....not the other way around. Jim At 12:11 AM 1/26/97 -0800, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
|} There are no settlements because traffic has little relevance to |} relative worth of connectivity from one provider to another. The large |} ISPs are generally interested in market share or peers, not in volume |} of mutual traffic.
Large ISPs should probably be interested in access to content, without it their users could find the Internet a very boring place.
-jh-
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jim McManus wrote: |} Or...since the business model of many (but not all) major web sites is |} related to advertising, they should pay isp's for access to their |} audience (client base of isp). It is the audience that makes the web |} site more valuable....not the other way around. Who says the business model won't shift? It has for ISPs. Once everyone (well, almost everyone) was peering or pursuing peering with everyone else, that's no longer the case. Some ISPs are still somewhat reasonable (e.g. you're spending $1M/yr with us for other services so we'll peer with you). What if web site, or content business models change? What if people deem their content so valuable that besides (or rather than) charging the consumer, they want to charge the network provider access to the content? (ala MTV) If you look hard at the economics, it's very hard to make huge revenues on advertising alone. IP makes content, IP sells content to distributor, distributor distributes content to consumer and/or resells content to other distributor for another tier of consumers or re-branding. -jh- IP = Information Provider
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:
What if web site, or content business models change? What if people deem their content so valuable that besides (or rather than) charging the consumer, they want to charge the network provider access to the content? (ala MTV)
MTV is great evidence for the argument that there is no single answer. Some cable networks pay to be placed on local cable systems, some are paid for being on there. The cost of content for a cable provider might be significant, or it might cancel out to nil. Networks will charge if they can get away with it. If you don't like it, then don't pay. Haven't we already had this discussion before? __ Todd Graham Lewis Mindspring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:
What if web site, or content business models change? What if people deem their content so valuable that besides (or rather than) charging the consumer, they want to charge the network provider access to the content? (ala MTV)
MTV is great evidence for the argument that there is no single answer. Some cable networks pay to be placed on local cable systems, some are paid for being on there. The cost of content for a cable provider might be significant, or it might cancel out to nil.
Networks will charge if they can get away with it. If you don't like it, then don't pay.
Doesn't quite work this way: It depends on the customer base (w/ cable TV/DSS/ect.). If TCI has an installed base large enough, content providor (MTV) will pay to have their content. If I am a new access providor with a relativly small install base, I will need to but content in order to attract my customer base. The model doesn't quite work the same for the Internet, or does it? As a small providor I am willing to "buy" peering and transit from the larger (based on customers) providors in order to get/give better access. The other case for buying transit is to get to a better backbone, but I think that is a different discussion.
Whatever you do, don't overlap old acronyms with new meanings if you don't absolutely have to, i.e. don't call content providers IP. Call them CP or something like that. Dirk On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jonathan Heiliger wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Jim McManus wrote:
|} Or...since the business model of many (but not all) major web sites is |} related to advertising, they should pay isp's for access to their |} audience (client base of isp). It is the audience that makes the web |} site more valuable....not the other way around.
Who says the business model won't shift? It has for ISPs. Once everyone (well, almost everyone) was peering or pursuing peering with everyone else, that's no longer the case. Some ISPs are still somewhat reasonable (e.g. you're spending $1M/yr with us for other services so we'll peer with you).
What if web site, or content business models change? What if people deem their content so valuable that besides (or rather than) charging the consumer, they want to charge the network provider access to the content? (ala MTV) If you look hard at the economics, it's very hard to make huge revenues on advertising alone.
IP makes content, IP sells content to distributor, distributor distributes content to consumer and/or resells content to other distributor for another tier of consumers or re-branding.
-jh-
IP = Information Provider
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Dirk Harms-Merbitz wrote:
Whatever you do, don't overlap old acronyms with new meanings if you don't absolutely have to, i.e. don't call content providers IP. Call them CP or something like that.
I second that motion. I'm currently having a debate with Macintosh-based ISP's who have fallen into the habit of using "multihoming" to refer to virtual domain webservers and now the software industry is starting to do it as well (see http://www.macweek.com/mw_1103/gw_tenon.html for an example). If we don't have a shared language, we can't communicate. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (6)
-
Daryn D. Fisher -
Dirk Harms-Merbitz -
Jim McManus -
Jonathan Heiliger -
Michael Dillon -
Todd Graham Lewis