I know I'm going to regret saying this, but we haven't made much progress
in ten years.
I got a lot of interest in that draft, none of which came from
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I think that people need to consider that maybe there might be advantages to
non-flat rate, non-consumer pays charging models.
I don't expect the attempted shakedown of Google to work and there are
certainly tactics that they could use to preclude any desire on the part of
the carriers to do any such thing.
A much more interesting case would be delivery of video on demand. This is
surely what the proponents of the sender pays scheme are really thinking
If I am going to send a copy of a $200 million action movie to a viewer I am
going to expect to be paid for that. The viewer is going to expect a high
quality viewing experience. The problem is that the bandwidth they subscribe
to for Web browsing purposes may not be great enough to support that viewing
If I am charging $8 for a movie I might well be willing to pay $0.50 to the
carrier as a distribution fee in exchange for access to high bandwith pipe
for an interval.
The point here is that higher bandwidth costs more to provide. If the
bandwidth is provided to every subscriber all the time the costs are much
greater than providing the ultra-high speed to a small pool of subscribers
who need it for a limited time and purpose. If the high bandwidth is added
to the general pool then it will be diluted by contention and the folk
running file sharing &ct.
Ietf mailing list