The reason is because as an ISP, you generally have to build out for peak, not average use, unless you're [maligned eyeball provider] and just don't care.
-Blake On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Saku Ytti <[email protected]> wrote: > On (2014-05-24 16:44 -0500), Blake Dunlap wrote: > >> For those that don't realize the underlying math: Per mb billing is >> based on average throughput for the period, 95th is billing based on >> lopped ceiling peak. > > Aye. per MB is much more fair, two 95 percentile customers could be using > wildly different amount of network capacity yet pay exactly the same. I wonder > what is the history behind 95 percentile, why did we make it de-facto for IP > transit? > > I'm also interested if Australia has similar content/eyeball disputes as EU > and US for those companies who do per byte billing? > > Intuitively it would seem that if I'm being paid for bytes I'm delivering, I'd > want as many bytes from content networks as I can possibly get. As opposed to > if I'm not being paid, I'd like to deliver as little as possible, to avoid > eroding margins. > > This is what we're seeing in EU and US, eyeball networks regularly just stop > delivering content bytes until content shops pays to them. Which creates > inefficient indirect billing as netflix et.al. then have to increase end-user > pricing to cover these traffic charges. > > -- > ++ytti > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
