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 about. 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 experience. 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.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf