[e2e] end of interest

Jon Crowcroft Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Mon Apr 21 12:52:26 PDT 2008

so the value of the net is the value the end users bring when they
contribute content - this (as you rightly say) is somewhere in the
n..n*ln(0n) ..n^2 range...

so the problem is that any given ISP cannot bring more than a fraction
of this - but it is also not at all clear that the peering v.
customer/provider model, nor a simple count of direct subscribers,
would really tell you either...

what you need is pagerank for ISPs... and then a charge to the end
user based on the so called "value" of the set of places they

only probem is that the direction of value is completely obscured by
the compelx arrangements content providers make to send you the stuff
you want (should pay for) and the stuff you dont want (adverts to get
them revenue so they dont have to charge you for the stuff you want).

this applies even to personal sites (like i can get adsense revenue on
my blogs)...

so which end pays how much? hmmm...

...no, i give up- i think the state should own and run the net -
there's clearly no long term value in it with the way it is
architected today..

In missive <044c01c8a3e8$7bbea150$1a6115ac at dcml.docomolabsusa.com>, "James Kemp
f" typed:

 >>When I say "for free", what I meant was that when I get my bill, what does 
 >>it say I'm paying for?
 >>What it says is that I am paying  $25 a month for 1 Mpbs downlink and 768 
 >>kbps uplink for the month of, say, March (AT&T just raised my rates).
 >>It does not say that I am paying $x for 250 connections, above which I would 
 >>have to pay incrementally for additional connections (and pay through the 
 >>nose if I get a Storm worm infection).
 >>To see what a difference this makes, consider the California "energy crisis" 
 >>of the early 2000's. Utilities were required to buy power at market rate, 
 >>but only allowed to charge customers a fixed and regulated price. Enron took 
 >>advantage of this situation (kind of like the Storm work authors and 
 >>CanadianPharmacy.com do with the Internet) to make enormous amounts of money 
 >>by manipulating the market. Getting pricing signals right is very important 
 >>because they influence customer and market participant behavior. Getting 
 >>them wrong can lead to all kinds of distortions.
 >>If, as the theoretical studies suggest, the value of networks is in their 
 >>connectivity, then why shouldn't businesses charge for that value? Or are 
 >>you suggesting that the theoretical studies on network value have it wrong? 
 >>Your point about capex of equipment and labor to maintain the network has 
 >>nothing to do with the value provided by the network, it has to do with the 
 >>cost of providing the service. These are two different things.
 >>            jak
 >>----- Original Message ----- 
 >>From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com>
 >>To: "James Kempf" <kempf at docomolabs-usa.com>
 >>Cc: "Jon Crowcroft" <Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk>; 
 >><end2end-interest at postel.org>
 >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:02 PM
 >>Subject: Re: [e2e] end of interest
 >>James -
 >>Connectivity in the Internet is NOT free (at least "as in beer").   The
 >>Storm worm used already paid-up capacity, paid for by the users in bulk
 >>form.  One can get confused because the phone companies charge "by the
 >>minute" for some things, but give away *for free* so-to-speak the
 >>always-on connection between home instrument and line card.   How dare
 >>you not pay for receiving all the bits of information that come from
 >>knowing that "no one is calling you right now" - you should pay at
 >>texting rates for those bits, unless you are a pirate.  :-)
 >>I'd suggest using accurate terminology, lest one just add to the confusion.
 >>The primary cost base of a communications company is composed of capex
 >>for the wires and switches, power for them, and salaries for humans who
 >>interface with customers.   None of those are correlated even slightly
 >>with minutes of voice or bits of data.
 >>Economics is hard work, but its probably worth learning the meaning of
 >>the term "free".
 >>James Kempf wrote:
 >>> 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



More information about the end2end-interest mailing list