On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:01:58PM -0700, George Bonser wrote: > But there is a potential problem here in that content providers are > producing applications and content requiring increasing amounts of > bandwidth but are not bearing the cost of delivering that content to the > end user.
Yes they are -- content providers aren't getting their connections to the Internet for free (and if they are, how can I get me some of that?). > If the ISPs are directly peering with the content provider at > some IX, the content provider gets what amounts to a free ride to the > end user. Say wha? ISPs don't *have* to peer at an IX; if they think that it's cheaper to buy transit from someone than it is to peer, they're more than capable of doing so. > They then release a new version of something that uses more > bandwidth (say, going to HD video and then maybe 3D HD at some point) > which puts pressure on the ISPs network resources. Do you then increase > prices to the consumer in a highly competitive market and run the risk > of driving your customers away, do you absorb the cost of required > upgrades and run at a loss for a while only to see the applications > increase in bandwidth requirements again? The customer's requesting this traffic, therefore the customer needs a bigger pipe, therefore the customer pays more. > Do you try to get the content provider to pay for some of the "shipping" > cost? Why? It was your customer who requested the traffic be delivered to them. - Matt
