Paul Brislen wrote:
nope, no distinction was made... Telecom made the same claim to me earlier today as well, although Chris T stresses they haven't made any announcement about switching off peering at this stage.
Telecom's argument was this:
If you (Customer A) set up a video server in Invercargil (JuhaDownCountry.com) that for whatever reason got a lot of traffic, the telcos would have to install new capacity/servers/gear/etc to cope with the demand and they would need to recoup that cost from you, Customer A.
So they want money from content generators, basically, as well as their own customers. Is this what they'll tell the likes of TVNZ, the Herald, or Citylink for the matter, next time something like LOTR happens? It's worth noting that there are mechanisms, easily implemented, that can lower the amount of traffic coming from "JuhaDownCountry.com", or even prevent it completely, if said telco's network can't handle it. Citylink can attest to this.
I said but what about Customer B, the end user who is requesting that information - they pay already for that traffic.
Yes, yes they do, came the reply.
Double-dipping would seem to describe it, unless of course Customer A is used to subsidise the activities of Customer B, in which case stronger vocabulary should be employed. -- Juha