From avg@quake.net Mon Sep 30 16:14 PDT 1996

...

Why is it any different than the big ISP's customers dumping packets on small ISP's web server?

The Web page owners pay for that, ok? If they do not want other people accessing their data they wouldn't put it there for open and pay for it, too.

I didn't know access service providers are not paid by their web browsing clients. I've a public telephone number, that doesn't mean you can keep calling the number as often you want. You have conveniently ignored to address the main issue of how bandwidth and traffic usage should be charged as the nature of network usage changes. The new evolving usage patterns may not be convenient to you because they are different from what you've been used to or prove that you made a bad infrastructure investments or maybe you are not used to looking beyond the nuts and bolts, the DS3's, backbones and BGP sessions. We are not arguing technical issues here. I do not like the model where established players will contiue to pay only for telco costs, but not IP traffic costs to anyone else whatsoever even though their clients' usage is affecting someone else's network and their customers pay them for the ability to browse contents elsewhere, and therefore are effectively subsidized to some extent by what a relatively small ISP content provider pays for IP traffic. There might very well be a caller-pays-for-the-session model or settlement charges based on who initiates how much traffic. I don't know. I look forward to competitive offerings from big providers of the kind Sean Doran envisioned in his essay.

I'm sick of net.socialists who think that universal connectivity is an

Sure, start labeling when you run out of arguments. A certain losing politician could use your help. Sanjay.