[e2e] Re: economic models for access bandwidth
xwang at ctr.columbia.edu
Thu Apr 19 08:14:26 PDT 2001
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> At 15:33 18/04/01, Bob Braden wrote:
> >However, an interesting observation from the discussion so
> >far is that we Internet purists might actually find it useful to have some form of usage-based charging, something we have
> >fiercely resisted in the past. Useful, because in the real world
> >a provider is likely to try to limit the kinds of service access
> >an end system can have, to limit the bandwidth that user can
> >consume. If there were charging, there would be no excuse
> >to block arbitrary IP traffic.
> I'd edit the last sentence to read:
> "If there were charging, bandwidth consumption wouldn't
> be a reason for an ISP to block certain kinds of IP traffic."
> Also, I think the charging would have to be sensitive
> to offered load, with peak hour bandwidth costing more than
> off hour bandwidth, in order to remove ISP's incentives to
> manage traffic types.
> Also, residential ISPs cater to the masses,
> who expect their Internet access to be "secure" (whatever that
> means to them). This sociological phenomenon has led some
> residential ISPs to block certain transport-layer ports
> because they are commonly used to attack the computers
> of the mass subscribers.
> All that noted, I *really* prefer to have a fixed sized
> and moderate monthly bill for IP dialtone (as I have at present)
> because it makes my monthly budgeting much easier.
Charge does not necessarily mean high pay. For an elastic user, it is
just an incentive for him to adjust the transmission rate.
On the other hand, for an inelastic user, a higher
fixed monthly charge can still work. Different people may have different
More information about the end2end-interest