Re: Transaction Based Settlements Encourage Waste (was Re: B
Mike Leber wrote:
You appear to be missing the point that there are perfect legitimate and non fraudulent ways of increasing the amount of traffic generated. For example, simply pay all your web hosting clients based on the amount of traffic generated. Then instruct them on ways to maximize their revenue using methods that don't overly annoy users. For example:
1) implement anticaching measures (both antibrowser cache and anti transparent proxy cache)
2) make their pages automatically reload every minute to show some dynamic indicator (say, the temperature and humiditty outside).
3) use lots of very long streaming data. They should have sound on every page (and the sound files should be 3 weeks of data). That way if somebody visits your client's site and then goes to lunch or home for the weekend the web site is still generating revenue by playing this huge sound file because the visitor's browser was left viewing your client's nice site.
My argument was that in addition to the peering settlement charges, each network would charge their customers for the traffic they generate. So, if you ask your web hosting customers to add traffic, and actually pay them for that, then my customers that request content from yours get a bigger bill than they used to. My customers stop going to your customers site. (I'll provide them with an itemized bill that lets them see what cost so much and why.) Your customers figure out they are getting a free internet connection from you (since you are now subsidizing their connection/traffic cost), but they are no longer getting any business from their customers. I imagine they take off the extra traffic real quick. And the numbers I am talking about would be quite small. Enough for the average dial user to retain a bill that is near $20/month. However, for those that generate much more, they'd get billed more. Now at the peering points, when you have thousands of dial in users requesting content, and you are on the short end of the traffic exchange in terms of byte count, so you'll have to pay the large content ISP, you can pass that on to your many dial customers. It would be similar on the content size -- you can charge based on the traffic they generate, but most likley, this will be a small small amount, since you be getting money from your peers. Again, this requires all ISP's to do per usage based fees -- not just one or two ISPs could start to do it, or they'd lose all their customers. I'm not saying to use the current flat rate costs *and* charge for usage, but lower the flat rate (or make it nothing or next to nothing) and then charge for usage. Shouldn't those users that generate the most traffic on your network pay for it? For number 3, if you are paying for traffic you receive, you no longer get up and go to lunch with your internet connection running! One thing I hadn't thought about, that your post brought out... If I cache, I am charging my customers for traffic they request, even though I only had to pay for it once... Not sure that passes the ethics committee. I know settlement based peering and usage based charges for your customers is not without many problems, but I think they can be worked out. I think settlements without usage based charges has no chance, as traffic generators can then run free. But when someone is paying for the traffic, bogus traffic would stop. There may be some period of instability as all Internet customers get used to it, but I think it could come around. And it is my take that you can catch non-legit traffic, and if the penalties for creating such traffic are high enough, it would happen infrequently. I know others feel that you can always generate bogus traffic that is not tractable, but if the technology is not there today, it is not far away. Sean ___________________________________ Sean Butler, CCIE #3897 IBM Global Services -- OpenNet Support Phone: 8-631-9809, 813-523-7353 Fax: 8-427-5475 813-878-5475 Internet email: sebutler@us.ibm.com
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 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
My argument was that in addition to the peering settlement charges, each network would charge their customers for the traffic they generate. So, if you ask your web hosting customers to add traffic, and actually pay them for that, then my customers that request content from yours get a bigger bill than they used to. My customers stop going to your customers site. (I'll provide them with an itemized bill that lets them see what cost so much and why.)
This is nice. Do you have any idea what kind of backend software would you need to be able to process that much data in real-time? Alex
hmmm In a way aren't we doing this with CIR etc etc. How about paying for differing levels or QoS. This seem to offer better utilization of the lines. During off peak times EVERY packet would get through even RED frames. Maybe a "free" site like a shareware site would have every frame tagged Red. During heavy loads these sites would suffer however customers paying for their traffic to be all green or mostly green/ambre would be paying the brunt of the costs. Obviously ATM offers tons of QoS features. The drawback here is Im not sure the salesmen in the backbones would understand the concept much less explain it to the poor customers effectively. If I have a personal web site I would not going with all RED frames (or equivalent). If I were Fidelity Brokerage obviously I would bite the bullet and pay for an all GREEN service since my customers are doing live time sensitive transactions. Isn't this more fair? It would allow a greater use of resources. The issue then runs into QoS is easy to handle on the ingress but not egress especially if it is to a different network over an exchange point. Dave At 9:37 PM -0000 8/24/98, Sean Butler wrote:
Mike Leber wrote:
You appear to be missing the point that there are perfect legitimate and non fraudulent ways of increasing the amount of traffic generated. For example, simply pay all your web hosting clients based on the amount of traffic generated. Then instruct them on ways to maximize their revenue using methods that don't overly annoy users. For example:
1) implement anticaching measures (both antibrowser cache and anti transparent proxy cache)
2) make their pages automatically reload every minute to show some dynamic indicator (say, the temperature and humiditty outside).
3) use lots of very long streaming data. They should have sound on every page (and the sound files should be 3 weeks of data). That way if somebody visits your client's site and then goes to lunch or home for the weekend the web site is still generating revenue by playing this huge sound file because the visitor's browser was left viewing your client's nice site.
My argument was that in addition to the peering settlement charges, each network would charge their customers for the traffic they generate. So, if you ask your web hosting customers to add traffic, and actually pay them for that, then my customers that request content from yours get a bigger bill than they used to. My customers stop going to your customers site. (I'll provide them with an itemized bill that lets them see what cost so much and why.) Your customers figure out they are getting a free internet connection from you (since you are now subsidizing their connection/traffic cost), but they are no longer getting any business from their customers. I imagine they take off the extra traffic real quick.
And the numbers I am talking about would be quite small. Enough for the average dial user to retain a bill that is near $20/month. However, for those that generate much more, they'd get billed more. Now at the peering points, when you have thousands of dial in users requesting content, and you are on the short end of the traffic exchange in terms of byte count, so you'll have to pay the large content ISP, you can pass that on to your many dial customers. It would be similar on the content size -- you can charge based on the traffic they generate, but most likley, this will be a small small amount, since you be getting money from your peers.
Again, this requires all ISP's to do per usage based fees -- not just one or two ISPs could start to do it, or they'd lose all their customers. I'm not saying to use the current flat rate costs *and* charge for usage, but lower the flat rate (or make it nothing or next to nothing) and then charge for usage. Shouldn't those users that generate the most traffic on your network pay for it?
For number 3, if you are paying for traffic you receive, you no longer get up and go to lunch with your internet connection running!
One thing I hadn't thought about, that your post brought out... If I cache, I am charging my customers for traffic they request, even though I only had to pay for it once... Not sure that passes the ethics committee.
I know settlement based peering and usage based charges for your customers is not without many problems, but I think they can be worked out. I think settlements without usage based charges has no chance, as traffic generators can then run free. But when someone is paying for the traffic, bogus traffic would stop. There may be some period of instability as all Internet customers get used to it, but I think it could come around.
And it is my take that you can catch non-legit traffic, and if the penalties for creating such traffic are high enough, it would happen infrequently. I know others feel that you can always generate bogus traffic that is not tractable, but if the technology is not there today, it is not far away.
Sean ___________________________________ Sean Butler, CCIE #3897 IBM Global Services -- OpenNet Support Phone: 8-631-9809, 813-523-7353 Fax: 8-427-5475 813-878-5475 Internet email: sebutler@us.ibm.com
Thank you, David Diaz Chief Technical Officer Netrail, Inc email: davediaz@netrail.net pager: 888-576-1018 office: 888-NETRAIL Colo facilities: Atlanta-NAP, Miami, Arlington, Chicago, San Francisco 888-NETRAIL for further information
participants (4)
-
Alex "Mr. Worf" Yuriev -
David Diaz/I.P.O.F.-Netrail, Inc. -
Mike Leber -
Sean Butler