[ppml] [narten at us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances inARIN]

[Owen DeLong]

What if there is no downloader?  It's very trivial to generate lots of
outbound
traffic to look like "upload" without anyone on the other end caring about
what arrives.

So... Under your model, ISP pays me to clog up his network with packets
destined
to non-existant sites and bills who, exactly to cover these costs?

Owen


--On April 19, 2006 6:28:47 AM -0700 Peter Sherbin <pesherb at yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> In my home use, I send out about 10 x as much as I bring in. Does  
>> this mean that
>> I can get a connection from you and you will pay me ?
> 
> That is correct. ISP would charge those on their network downloading what
> you send out. To do that ISP needs to count data flows by user.
> Payout to you from ISP depends on the volume and may take different
> shapes, e.g. volume credit towards future downloads.
> The bottom line is a downloader pays to an uploader for content. There is
> also a flat rate to cover provider costs (same as flat monthly rate for a
> regular phone wireline).
> 
> Peter
> 
> --- Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello;
>> 
>> On Apr 18, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Peter Sherbin wrote:
>> 
>> >> So the carriers owe the content providers $M's/month ???
>> > 
>> > In the exact same fashion as cable providers owe studios.
>> > 
>> >> Obviously you haven't head of P2P, or people hosting family oriented
>> >> content. Not all traffic is download.
>> > 
>> > Look again at the formula. If (Download - Upload) < 0, then your  
>> > bill equals 0.
>> > Traffic uploaders (aka content providers) are good for the network  
>> > because:
>> > Assumption 1. People access the Internet to download content
>> > (and such downloaders are supposed to pay for satisfying that need).
>> > 
>> 
>> In my home use, I send out about 10 x as much as I bring in. Does  
>> this mean that
>> I can get a connection from you and you will pay me ? If so, please  
>> send me contract details.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Marshall Eubanks
>> 
>> >> That billing model is not ready for use, and security or lack  
>> >> thereof has
>> >> nothing to do with it.
>> > 
>> > If security has nothing to do with the Internet then why does the  
>> > community spends
>> > so much time and effort on it?
>> > 
>> > Peter
>> > 
>> > --- Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Peter Sherbin wrote:
>> >>> The Internet billing model is simple:
>> >>> 
>> >>> (Download - Upload) * $/bit = Billed Amount
>> >> 
>> >> So the carriers owe the content providers $M's/month ???
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> It is based on two assumptions:
>> >>> 1. People access the Internet to download content
>> >>> 2. Paying party controls their download activity
>> >> 
>> >> Obviously you haven't head of P2P, or people hosting family oriented
>> >> content. Not all traffic is download.
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> If security becomes a prohibitive concern for the above then the  
>> >>> product
>> >>> is just not
>> >>> ready for use.
>> >> 
>> >> That billing model is not ready for use, and security or lack  
>> >> thereof has
>> >> nothing to do with it.
>> >> 
>> >> Tony
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PPML mailing list
>> > PPML at arin.net
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060419/7ec70ae9/attachment.sig>