Hmmm.. I think they DO charge the recipient of the cell call. Even if
its a land line, the recipient does have to pay for service, even if it
is a "unlimited minutes" plan. Nobody has FREE phone service. Someone
pays for the dial tone, even if its VOIP.
The telephone system kind of IS the original INTER(national)NET(work)
just that it was in place before everyone out there was trying to hook
up a computer and send each other video clips of chimpanzees lip-syncing
Sonny and Cher songs.
The nice thing as a provider (of the phone or the internet, or both) is
that whether your customer is sending bits (or voice) or whether the
customer is receiving, they are still paying you. Peering agreements
between tier 1 providers only make their network better. AT&T knows that
if they can't get my bits to connect to websites hosted on Sprint lines,
then I will find an upstream who will. Same thing if I am a hosting
company. If I host using a Verizon upstream, and L3 customers cannot
connect to my server, then VZ will get the boot.
Same analogy applies to phones. If my Sprint phone in Texas couldn't
connect me to a Verizon subscriber in West Virginia, and Sprint said it
was because they couldn't get a peering agreement with Verizon, then I
would discontinue the peering agreement between Sprint and my checkbook.
On the other hand, as a provider, I do have the ability to give access
to only my subscribers for certain perks. Some cell providers offer
"free" mobile to mobile calling. And why not? This gets them loyalty to
both customers. Other ISPs offer "exclusive content" (AOL, YahooDSL,
etc). The "exclusive" video clips available offered by cell providers is
a war going on now that I don't really understand, but if it brings in
the customers, then good for them.
If you cannot offer something more than the competitor, then you are
just another ISP. To stand out from the competition, you need to offer
something. Speed, reliability, security, exclusive content, price,
availability to connectivity when the customer lives 14 miles out of the
city limits, or whatever.
Pete Davis
NoDial.net
Sam Tetherow wrote:
The cell phone analogy is a bit off target though, unless you want to
charge the recipient of the cell call.
The peering wars pretty much died in 95 when the fledgling internet
business wouldn't tolerate it then. I highly doubt that it would put
up with it now.
If AT&T, VZ, L3 & GX/XO/Gogent/other want/need more revenue for their
pipes, they will charge more.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Peter R. wrote:
Think about your cell phone. Do you get access to the entire Net or
only some of it?
Think about EVDO. Is it truly unlimited or are there rules and
enforcement?
It is not inconceivable that VZ and AT&T would design a Prodigy type
service and call it the Internet.
Personally, I would like to see a Truth in Advertising type law in
effect in place of NN, but it is conceivable that to get access to
all eyeballs you may have to buy 3 or 4 feeds - AT&T, VZ, L3 &
GX/XO/Cogent/other.
If peering changes, the ripple effect would be crazy. Most carriers
don't have the margin to change from peering to transit.
It isn't any one single thing happening that worries me, it is the
conflugence of so many things happening at the same time.
- Peter
Sam Tetherow wrote:
Ain't going to happen, Net Neutrality is another y2k, all hype,
little to no substance.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
