At 03:28 p.m. 25/05/2004 +1200, Paul Brislen wrote:

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.

being the owner of several video servers I can reply on this one. If you use the model they mention then Peter Jackson would have to pay the Embassy to screen his movies as well as the Embassy charging the public to watch. To give you a very real example. LOTR-3 Premiere. We got paid nothing for webcasting the event. Based on the extra traffic that went to TCL, they earned $250,000 in 5 hours of webcast. Not small change. TCNZ would have earned around $500,000 had they peered properly. The others probably earned around another $250,000 Had we not anycast LOTR-3 we would have had to pay our ISP. We deliberately engineered it to avoid that possibility, having accidentally generated a huge bill the year before. Yes a telco would have to install capacity to my server, but if they peer properly its for the traffic requests generated by their customers that runs over that peering link. Its exactly why all my servers are at exchanges, so that ISPs can get to the content with the least effort and cost. rich