Or...since the business model of many (but not all) major web sites is
related to advertising, they should pay isp's for access to their audience
(client base of isp). It is the audience that makes the web site more
valuable....not the other way around.
Who says the business model won't shift? It has for ISPs. Once everyone
(well, almost everyone) was peering or pursuing peering with everyone
else, that's no longer the case. Some ISPs are still somewhat reasonable
(e.g. you're spending $1M/yr with us for other services so we'll peer with
What if web site, or content business models change? What if people deem
their content so valuable that besides (or rather than) charging the
consumer, they want to charge the network provider access to the content?
(ala MTV) If you look hard at the economics, it's very hard to make huge
revenues on advertising alone.
IP makes content, IP sells content to distributor, distributor distributes
content to consumer and/or resells content to other distributor for
another tier of consumers or re-branding.
IP = Information Provider
MTV is great evidence for the argument that there is no single answer.
Some cable networks pay to be placed on local cable systems, some are paid
for being on there. The cost of content for a cable provider might be
significant, or it might cancel out to nil.
Networks will charge if they can get away with it. If you don't like it,
then don't pay.
Haven't we already had this discussion before?
Doesn't quite work this way:
It depends on the customer base (w/ cable TV/DSS/ect.). If TCI has an installed base large enough, content providor (MTV) will pay to have their content. If I am a new access providor with a relativly small install base, I will need to but content in order to attract my customer base.
The model doesn't quite work the same for the Internet, or does it?
As a small providor I am willing to "buy" peering and transit from the larger (based on customers) providors in order to get/give better access.
The other case for buying transit is to get to a better backbone, but I think that is a different discussion.
Whatever you do, don't overlap old acronyms with new meanings if you don't
absolutely have to, i.e. don't call content providers IP. Call them CP or
something like that.
I second that motion.
I'm currently having a debate with Macintosh-based ISP's who have fallen
into the habit of using "multihoming" to refer to virtual domain
webservers and now the software industry is starting to do it as well
(see http://www.macweek.com/mw_1103/gw_tenon.html for an example).
If we don't have a shared language, we can't communicate.
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: email@example.com