On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rubens Kuhl" <rube...@gmail.com> > >> >> Isn't the real problem with global multicast: "How do we ultimately >> >> bill the broadcaster for all that traffic amplification that >> >> happened >> >> *inside* every other AS?" It seems like you'd have to do per-packet >> >> accounting at every router, and coordinate billing/reporting >> >> amongst >> >> all providers that saw those packets. >> >> Broadcast encrypted streams. Unicast the key distribution, allowing >> interested parties to count, bill, block, allow, litigate, agree... > > And that's the snap answer, yes. But the *load*, while admittedly > lessened over unicast, falls *mostly* to the carriers, who cannot anymore > bill for it, either to end users, providers, *or* as transit.
Why not ? One can set conditions for doing multicast replication prior to doing it, and they might include payment for services. We don`t have a global Multicast RP for everyone to use, each operator chooses if, how and when multicast streams are going into their RPs. > Will they not complain about having their equipment utilization go up > with no recompense -- for something that is only of benefit to commercial > customers of some other entity? Unicast streaming has done it already, as Vladis pointed out... Rubens