-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- --On Friday, January 24, 2003 12:52:58 +0100 Jasminko Mulahusic
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> and what about streaming services?
Or Multicast? Can you defend billing people for the same traffic twice or
> to me, the volume based charging scheme looks like a shortsighted
> solution -- to protect networks now. but if the flat-rate business
> models have proven not to hold, then in order not to impede innovation on
> the 'net, a more flexible charging architecture might be needed.
"Protecting networks". It sounds wrong, it is wrong (and I am not blaming
you, Jasminko; you just caught the spirit of this discussion). What the
average ISP *really* wants is more business, not "protection" (ie.
stagnation). If you as an ISP can't pay the bills with your income, then
your pricing is wrong, or your organisation not lean enough. You should go
bankrupt and let others take your business. This is capitalism.
I do not see any bright future in billing-per-byte -- all I've seen in this
discussion so far are that the people who do not yet experience it -- they
are those who think about trying it, and people who've had it as a business
model tend to describe, with relief, how they /finally got rid of it/.
This should serve as a strong indicator that volume billing is a Bad Idea.
*IF* people are so bad at doing business that they consider billing per
byte a must, Mikaels model (ie large steps and warning ahead) sounds like
the least stupid.
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (OpenBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----