Re: US Network Community involvement

  • To: sverker at mirror-image dot com (Sverker Lindbo)
  • Subject: Re: US Network Community involvement
  • From: "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <map at iphil dot net>
  • Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 04:33:14 +0000 ()
  • Cc: ircache at nlanr dot net, apops at apnic dot net, ph-isp at iphil dot net
  • In-reply-to: <199612201625.RAA17609 at mail dot pi dot se> from "Sverker Lindbo" at Dec 20, 96 05:25:57 pm
  • Sender:
    • Hi,
      [I am cc:ing this to the Philippine ISP mailing list, and APOPS
      (Asia-Pacific Network Operations), since the folks there would be
      Sverker Lindbo wrote why US providers aren't interested in caching:
      > By and large they're not - and that for two reasons:
      Thanks for pointing this out, it's an interesting analysis.
      > Secondly bandwidth is relatively cheap in the US. To the nearest NAP it is
      > typically far less than $1,000 per Mbit/s per month. And even to Mae West
      > from the East coast it's typically only $2,000 per Mbit/s per month or so.
      > And the majors - like MCI and Sprint have their own fiber, so their marginal
      > production cost is far, far less.
      This issue is related to the Internet "balance of payments" issue that
      was discussed in the APPLE (Asia Pacific Legal something) list hosted by
      the APNIC (Asia-Pacific NIC).  The issue is, why do people outside the
      US bear the full cost of their international circuits for $xxxx/month
      when people in the US transmit data over these links for almost free?
      Thus, customers of US providers can generate uncacheable pictures, huge
      images, and the like for the WWW.  At least these can be remedied by
      your scheme, among others.  I am even more worried about live "push"
      technologies, streaming audio and video, and Internet telephony.
      Just imagine, Joe Smith in the US with his $100/month 64K ISDN account
      can flood Juan dela Cruz's ISP here in the Philippines.  Juan pays
      $10,000/month for the 64K leased line.  Joe thinks he's making free
      phone calls but Juan foots the bill.
      > In order to reach our perhaps somewhat optimistic (one of you suggested it
      > must have been stated on April 1st) ambition of a 90% cache yield (of static
      > web files) at <.1% bad data and at $1,500 per Mbit/s per month at any
      > exhange point in the world, we will have to work closely with the US content
      > providers. I have begun to do that, and got to know many of the big ones
      > (CNN, Disney, Playboy etc.)  
      Indeed.  But some of these guys (say MS, MSNBC and friends) are very 
      interested in delivering uncacheable "Active Server Pages".  Other folks
      might want to do the same with other on-the-fly technologies.
      So, these guys have to be convinced to locate a mirror in the foreign
      (i.e., non-US) companies which will generate the active content they want,
      mostly to sample the demographic profiles of their viewers.  For Microsoft,
      they could locate these mirror sites in their country offices, outside
      the corporate-wide firewall.  Thus, Microsoft will pay for the bandwidth
      required to update their site.
      Another, harsher, alternative, is to bill these providers for the
      bandwidth cost.  They will find that cacheable sites will lead to
      smaller bills on their part.
      If they don't pay, they'll be filtered out.
      > They are possible to work with, if you care to
      > see their point of view, and we will field a platoon of men-in-suits to do
      > just that. And their salaries will be included in the $1,500 per Mbit/s per
      > month - and some of the benefits will also go to the free riders who will
      > choose not to use our service.
      A grassroots approach based on Cache Now 
      <> could parallel your approach.
      In any case you should make them realize that others' bandwidth 
      costs so much more than theirs, a point that they probably don't realize.
      > And I'm always on the lookout for men-in-suits or would-be-men-in-suits
      > (suits may actually be optional) who want to take a salary for explaining
      > caching to American content providers.
      Or make caching a technical requirement inasmuch as TCP/IP, DNS, and 
      HTTP are.
      > sverker 
      > (who has worn a suit in his day, but does no more)
      Quite the opposite of most guys who started by getting their hands dirty,
      but moved on to wash their hands and wear suits?  ;)
      miguel a.l. paraz  <map at iphil dot net> | iphil communications, makati city, ph
      pgp key id: 0x43F0D011             | <>