RE: [Asrg] More 'pay per' foolishness

["Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan at verisign.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:asrg at johnlevine.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 9:50 AM
> To: asrg at ietf.org
> Cc: Hannigan, Martin
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] More 'pay per' foolishness
> 
> 
> >Peering analysis is broken out by protocol already and could easily
> >be billed accordingly. Currently, this data is used for capacity
> >planning.
> 
> That's nice.  Could you ask them, if they got port 25 traffic bills
> from all of their peers, how likely is it that they'd pay, are they
> prepared to break those bills down and send individual bills to all of
> their customers, and what are the procedures for dealing with
> customers that don't pay them?

John - I'm saying that the capabilities are in place. Do you 
understand how peering between large network entities works? 

I've classified this as "an idea". If it was already "in place" it
would be "fact". But to answer your question, companies call people
and ask for their money all the time. What makes this different?

> Metered Internet traffic has been the telcos' wet dream for a decade,
> but there is a whole lot of difference between counting backbone
> packets, which I believe they do, and an actual top to bottom billing
> system.  That's the multibillion dollar thing to which Phill referred
> that doesn't exist.  Yes, I know they're set up to bill voice minutes
> to phone customers, but ISP customers are not phone customers.


Isn't SPAM a multi-billion dollar thing? 

I'm starting to feel like 'Joey Bits' the Net.Capo is going to toss me in a
trunk and explain to me that if I don't agree with the end user
solution(s) I'm going into the Charles without a wetsuit. The horror!

-M<

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg