Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc to hold up her end of the conversation? Historically, aunt tillie's residential telephone line was subsidized by charging more for business lines. When you called aunt tillie, a portion of what you paid for the call passed through settlement charges and access fees to compensated both your service provider and aunt tillie's service provider for the call. These were usually implemented for social policy reasons, and its been a slow process to re-allocate the various billing practices to eliminate them. Aunt tillie saw it mostly as her local phone bill increased as she lost the benefit of the subsidy. if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer and i go to http://content.provider, why should content.provider pay to give the sbc paying customer what they're already charged for? When aunt tillie watches a home shopping channel, the channel usually gives a percentage of everything aunt tillie buys from the channel to the local cable operator. When aunt tillie watches basic cable channels, usually the channel gives the local cable operator several minutes of advertising time every hour, even though aunt tillie already paid for her cable. When aunt tillie calls a toll-free (1-800) number, the business answering the call pays for the call including the settlement and access charges for aunt tillie's service provider in addition to the business' service provider. Google pays compensation to some web sites to include sponsored links on their web pages. Why do businesses do this? Some believe it benefits advertisers to subsidize consumers basic cable, toll-free phone access and web sites so more consumers have access to their content, and in turn gives businesses a bigger market to sell too. Why would you want to prevent businesses from paying for part of aunt tillie's Internet access? If a business wants to pay for better than best effort access for users coming to its web site or using some other service such as VOIP, shouldn't it have that option?
RE: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Barak Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:18 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions snip like to point out for the record that none of the recent depeering battles have involved any RBOCs... Which makes sense when you consider much of the current traffic flows. It gets even more interesting when you look at the fast-increasing number of fat FiOS pipes. When you take (edonkey/kazaa/ptp-du-jour)+FiOS you get a network of distributed 'content providers'. Reference the earlier post about broadband getting a lot less interesting w/o the content. Well this rings true when you weigh the traffic load of 100K's of users poking around in a portal vs. 100K's of users 'shopping' for music movies! ___ Wayne Gustavus, CCIE #7426 IP Operations Support Verizon Internet Services ___ Can you ping me now? Good!
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. randy
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
On Nov 2, 2005, at 8:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote:the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent publicstatements on the use of his wires by google and the like.You can pretty much s/the sbc/rboc/g in this context. Leadership seems to believe that because those who conduct business over 'their' infrastructure aren't paying them a transaction fee, there's somehow something wrong with that model. Fact is, they _are_ getting paid for their pipes, and they've never been part of the transaction model (aka tax collectors). If you want to be something else, dump the pipes r us business model. But then you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Somehow, I'm very reminded of how the music industry has acted when faced with a disruptor. Very classic threat reponse of somebody thinking like a mono/duo/whateverpartitionedmarketpoly. Sections in http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/business/2005-10-31-bellsouth-mergers_x.htm have publically confirmed similar thought patterns. But then again, the CEO's of the companies mentioned here do look like twins separated at birth, with companies sharing very similar DNA (even though they all think they're very different).So, my point being in response to what Randy wrote.. expect a lot more where that came from, especially as margins come under more pressure. As long as they pretend disruption can be controlled or isn't happening, this will continue. And one could argue that the recently approved mergers might fuel such attitudes.Best regards,Christian
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc to hold up her end of the conversation? if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer and i go to http://content.provider, why should content.provider pay to give the sbc paying customer what they're already charged for? what these greedy bleeps want it a way to double bill. your analogy to the riaa/mpa desperation is apt. randy
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
On 11/2/05 2:04 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. randy For the curious on the list... How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! - Ed Whitacre, CEO of SBC - I choose to view this as ineffectual railing against the seemingly inevitable subordination of bit transport to compelling content. Memo to Ed Whitace: They ARE using your pipes right now, and they AREN'T paying you money. The funny thing is that your customers ARE paying you money for access to Google and Yahoo. Broadband gets a lot less compelling without content, so don't push it. -- Daniel Golding
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Randy Bush wrote: if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy voice customer, and i place a voice call to aunt tillie, does aunt tillie pay sbc to hold up her end of the conversation? No, but they pay their local carrier. And somewhere there's an IXC in the middle. And settlement happens. Access charges, LD charges and all. Hell, they even bill their customers on behalf of all those other guys. And they all want access charges (remember the fights a few years back?), and then they want a cut what goes over the pipe which the access charges just enabled. And I stand here shaking my head, going blblblblblb, wtf. All because they don't want and can't (sic) accept that the pipes r us business has been commoditized and evolution must happen for them to get money out of other services. Now, if they made bw free, and wanted a cut from the transaction.. I don't think anyone would object. Pull up the recent balance sheets and see how much money you'd have to make up to cover the gap. Ooof. if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer and i go to http://content.provider, why should content.provider pay to give the sbc paying customer what they're already charged for? That's my precisely my point as well. It's nutty. There are several people reading along here who saw first hand with me what sort of curious models this brought to light.. what these greedy bleeps want it a way to double bill. your analogy to the riaa/mpa desperation is apt. Thanks. And tomorrow we'll all wonder out loud why all these guys haven't been poaching customers in the other's backyard thus far in what's basically been a decade now since 1996, in spite of having hardly any regulatory restraints placed on them (about which they bitch so loudly at home). ;-) Best regards, Christian
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: They ARE using your pipes right now, and they AREN'T paying you money. The funny thing is that your customers ARE paying you money for access to Google and Yahoo. Broadband gets a lot less compelling without content, so don't push it. Hah. Classic. But, but, Dan, that trick-or-treating wasn't all. But if they harness their own content, then what would you have.. a captive supplier to an mono/whateverpoly? Oh what fun that would be for Christmas, on a one horse open sleigh. 'Tis the season, guys. Ho Ho Ho. http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/nov05/nov05-6.html You've got to admit, though, the ability to completely fade out reality and invent your own is impressive, and those CEO's ought to be commended. And while we're doing this with RBOCs, we can bitch about MSOs just the same. One might find a surprising number of similarities. Best regards, Christian
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
--- Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if i am a paying sbc or other foopoloy dsl customer and i go to http://content.provider, why should content.provider pay to give the sbc paying customer what they're already charged for? There is one scenario where the content.provider is paying the carrier as well - when the content.provider is a direct customer of the carrier, rather than being either a SFI-peer or a customer of an SFI-peer. This of course goes back to the question of depeering/transit/etc which we beat to death a couple of weeks ago - many carriers want to get paid both by the sources and sinks of traffic (it's certainly an understandable, if unlikely, desire). I would just like to point out for the record that none of the recent depeering battles have involved any RBOCs... -David Barak __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:04:52AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public statements on the use of his wires by google and the like. Come on, you didn't see that coming? I'd wager money that right now, somewhere at SBC, there are two executives in a board room with arms interlocked at the elbow, skipping merrily in a circle with giant grins on their faces, chanting: o/~ We're gonna be a tier 1 o/~ o/~ We're gonna be a tier 1 o/~ -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: SBC/ATT + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions
There is one scenario where the content.provider is paying the carrier as well - when the content.provider is a direct customer of the carrier, rather than being either a SFI-peer or a customer of an SFI-peer. This of course goes back to the question of depeering/transit/etc which we beat to death a couple of weeks ago - many carriers want to get paid both by the sources and sinks of traffic (it's certainly an understandable, if unlikely, desire). I would just like to point out for the record that none of the recent depeering battles have involved any RBOCs... Playing devil's advocate here... But what if (assuming a new generation of peering agreements came into being)... They allowed SELECTIVE depeering... say... by Customer? So SBC could depeer Google... (assume here the SBC wants Google to become a customer and isn't actually competing with Google as an SE guy). And assume that the FCC/Courts will take a few years to deal with the issue. I think it might be able to happen. What would a Google do? Anywhere it moves its bits, SBC would just drop them/ignore them. SBC is running a private network with some interconnections as far as SBC is concerned, and barring any wild lawsuits from customers and assuming an amendment to its TOS... You could selectively depeer BIG guys... that aren't SO big that your customers will mass defect.. So maybe Google isn't the right example. Maybe real.com is a better one. Would you lose many customers if real.com wasn't available to them? I bet not. But would real be willing to pay you $4K a month to keep access to your network??? probably. Just a thought. Deepak
