[e2e] end of interest

[James Kempf]

Jon,

According to Patrick Peterson at Ironport (presentation week before last the 
RSA Conference), the Storm worm made over 70,000 connections during the 
first 36 hours after infection. And the Storm network earns the spammers 
over $150 million in revenue through fufillment of Viagra orders through 
CandianPharmacy.com from Indian and Chinese sources.

If the architecture were such that connectivity was not free, you can be 
sure that the ISPs, equipment vendors, and others in the ecosystem would do 
something to ensure that this didn't happen. Otherwise, infected users would 
be screaming about their bills.

                  jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Crowcroft" <Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: "James Kempf" <kempf at docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: "Saikat Guha" <saikat at cs.cornell.edu>; <end2end-interest at postel.org>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [e2e] end of interest


so that leads to an interesting conclusion which might align
business models with anti-spam and anti-ddos economic
incentives.

1. charge a sender for the number of reachable recipients
per unit time...doesn't  hurt the average joe q public much,
collects much money of supernodes, big server sites, and
spammers/ddossers...

2. retire


In missive <026d01c8a3c8$a64278e0$1a6115ac at dcml.docomolabsusa.com>, "J
ames Kempf" typed:

 >>>the value of the net to users is that it connects them to content. the
 >>>network providers
 >>>are in the business of taking a fraction of the business that the 
content
 >>>providers are in
 >>>...
 >>
 >>If you look at any of the research on networks, most researchers agree 
that
 >>the value of the network is in connectivity. There's arguments about 
whether
 >>the value scales as O( n**2  ) via Metcalfe's Law or something more like
 >>O( n log(n)  ) which Briscoe, Odlyzko, and Tilly claim.  But nobody 
claims
 >>that the value of networks is in the bandwidth.
 >>
 >>Last time I looked, network providers weren't charging for connectivity,
 >>they were charging for bandwidth. Google makes tons of money off of small
 >>text ads that use almost no bandwidth but cash in from free connectivity.
 >>Network providers are forced to give away connectivity because the 
Internet
 >>architecture provides no way for them to charge for it. Not a 
particularly
 >>good business when you are forced to give away what is of value and 
charge
 >>for what isn't.
 >>
 >>My blog post this week discusses this more and the connection with
 >>end-to-end (http://cleanslate-internet.blogspot.com).
 >>
 >>                     jak
 >>
 >>

 cheers

   jon