« Paul Baran and open spectrum | Main | Please vote for netBlazr at MassChallenge »

April 26, 2011

Comments

Infostack

Brough,

A balanced payment system (vs either bill and keep or called party pays) can promote service creation. The internet peering model you speak about (bill and keep) does not promote the other side to invest in new technologies. Why is IPv4 still so prevalent? Maybe this is a bad example. But the bill and keep model worked when competitive WAN/transport prices and the cost of routers got so cheap that the marginal cost was negligible. That and the fact that local access was "flat-rate" after 1986 is what created layers 1-3 of Web 1.0 and made people think about it as "free". I've often thought that monetary exchanges that clear the traffic efficiently are the best route for service creation. BTW, I lump the current ad-based model into called party pays.

Best,
Michael Elling

brough

Michael, I can't agree that the Internet peering model "does not promote the other side to invest in new technologies." First, it's not clear who is "the other side" as the Internet backbone has undergone at least three major shifts in the past 15 years. Second, the Internet more than any other network in history has seen enormous investment in new technologies.

The one thing that's proven to stiffle innovation is government involvement in setting traffic interchange policies and/or pricing. The telephone network over the past 50-100 years is the perfect example of that. Indeed, to the extent you limit government involvement, things work better. See for example S C Littlechild on Mobile termination charges:
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/dae/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe0426.pdf

What was important about Internet access over dialup modems was that the underlying access technology (voice phone calls) was open access for everything above. Whether that open access was low cost (as in the US with flat rate calling) or higher cost (as in the EU) affected adoption rates but it still allowed innovation. In the US, we went from a few dozen to over 10K independent ISPs in less than ten years. Because the transport cost more in the EU, things were slower and less pronounced, but similar ISP competition emerged. With the advent of broadband access the transport layer is no longer open access so we're left with two vertically integrated monopolies in the US. ...sad...

Mudding Trucks


if you and the person yopur talking to has Skype, they allow customers to talk for free.

web design London

The internet peering model you speak about (bill and keep) does not promote the other side to invest in new technologies. Why is IPv4 still so prevalent? Maybe this is a bad example. But the bill and keep model worked when competitive WAN/transport prices and the cost of routers got so cheap that the marginal cost was negligible..The telephone network over the past 50-100 years is the perfect example of that. Indeed, to the extent you limit government involvement, things work better.

מדביר

I think paying for an Internet transit services that are likely to make the traffic in London or the United States with a higher level of player to deal with change.

בניית בריכות שחייה

This is a much larger interconnection agreements formed in different conditions, the Internet has never been the case with the telephone network.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Search this Blog

Subscribe by Email

March 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

Technorati


Site Meter

Upcoming Travel & Conferences


Twitter Feed

Become a Fan