As a telco we see a number of these services, based around premium rate dialup
access.
I have to say that so far none appears to have worked even ones we have done
that were advertised as part of the largest TV shows at the time.
For most applications, eg sports, porn it can only work if the i
JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My premise is that in the end, content providers want to send lots of
>packets more than end users want to pay to receive them. Joe is not
>willing to pay an equally high rate to get the packets that content
>providers are willing to pay to send them. Thu
On 08:33 PM 7/11/02, Barney Wolff wrote:
>
>On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:00:45PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>>
>> The problem with asymmetric pricing is that the cost of passing the
packets
>> is equally born by both ends. Take 2 networks that peer, one with mostly
>> content, one with mostly ey
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:00:45PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>
> The problem with asymmetric pricing is that the cost of passing the packets
> is equally born by both ends. Take 2 networks that peer, one with mostly
> content, one with mostly eyeballs. The content providers pay a higher
> price
On 11:31 AM 7/11/02, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
>JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700
>JD> From: JC Dill
>
>
>JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly
>JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for
>JD> those receiving said packets, much in the w
JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700
JD> From: JC Dill
JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly
JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for
JD> those receiving said packets, much in the way that 800
JD> numbers are funded in the telephone syste
On 07:55 AM 7/11/02, David Diaz wrote:
>Shane as far as the "thought" that backbones will "pay" to get to
>your content. It's just not going to happen. If the content were
>that important they might go directly to your customers and offer
>them a wonderful deal to buy a link from them.
Th
