> * _Stealing_ is when B uses A's resources without permission or > agreement. Okay, for the sake of perpetuating an argument which should be at least a little more interesting to you, Randy, than you let on, let's try reversing those labels... A = Little ISP B = Sprint or MCI C = Other transit provider B collects money from B's customers in exchange for giving them access to resources on the Internet. Let's say that A, which uses C for transit, sells a connection to, for instance, a library, with the assumption that they're providing a connection which library patrons will use to browse resources on the Internet. Instead, the library, A's customer, puts up their card catalog and a popular reference web site. B's customers all want to get to A and download big honking gifs. The "legitimate" path for this would be through C, to whom A has to pay money, but B does not. So let's look at the proposed definition of "stealing" again: > * _Stealing_ is when B uses A's resources without permission or > agreement. In this case, the resource is transit purchased by A from C, for the use of A's customers. In this case, B is "stealing" A's transit resource for the use of B's customers, without compensating A. C is a hapless bystander who now has to carry a lot of unneccessary traffic which could be flowing directly between A and B. Please explain to me how this creates a better, faster, cheaper, more reliable Internet. -Bill ________________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody@zocalo.net woody@applelink.apple.com user@host.domain.com
Hola, I'm not Randy, but I did state the previous definition. > A = Little ISP > B = Sprint or MCI > C = Other transit provider
In this case, the resource is transit purchased by A from C, for the use of A's customers. In this case, B is "stealing" A's transit resource for the use of B's customers, without compensating A.
I don't agree. B is utilizing A's transit resource in the manner A intended.
C is a hapless bystander who now has to carry a lot of unneccessary traffic which could be flowing directly between A and B.
Again, I don't agree. C is compensated by A to provide flow from B<->C<->A. C is not a hapless bystander, C is a provider to A, who provides A with a path out to the world, and provides the world (of which B is a subset) a path back to A. C is rewarded for their compliance through an agreement with A.
Please explain to me how this creates a better, faster, cheaper, more reliable Internet.
It creates a better internet as A is encouraed to purchase QOS X from C in order to allow A's customers both nice access and a nice presence on the Internet. C is encouraged to grow through economy of scale by providing transit for various entities, and, if they're really clever, will hit A and B coming and going :-) A wants to have nice connectivity to the world/B, so it is (assumedly) in their (A's) best interest to pay for such. The interesting thing in all of these discussions is to consider if A wants to talk to B more than B wants to talk to A. If C is not at either endpoint, then C must recover cost of transit from one or both. In a socialist world, some rule of law would establish an "equal" method of paying for such. In a capitalist world, we get to have discussions like these :) At least, that's how I see it. -alan
participants (2)
-
alan＠mindvision.com -
Bill Woodcock