[ NNSquad ] Re: Canada goes crazy

[Fearghas McKay <fm-lists@st-kilda.org>]

On 7 May 2010, at 19:59, Peter Sahlstrom wrote:

> One reasonable model for this type of scaled billing is that used by
> the natural gas utility here in Atlanta.  Each user's bill lists a
> "Base Rate" fee, which includes a "Peaking Service" charge, which is
> calculated annually based on how much gas a customer used during times
> of peak demand.  This allows the gas company to insure that enough
> capacity is available at those peak demand times, and forces the users
> most responsible for necessitating upgrades to pay for the costs of
> those upgrades.  A similar billing model for internet connectivity
> would allow service providers to penalize users who cause the most
> disruption to the network without imposing limits on how much data can
> be transferred, or with whom, or in what way.
>
> I'd appreciate hearing thoughts anyone might have about this approach.
> Does this seem fair?  Is it practical?  Has it already been
> implemented anywhere?

The LINX - London Internet IX moved to a charging model for traffic  
with a base membership fee a few years ago, before that it was a port  
based fee, ie the more and bigger the ports the more you pay.

In the large IXP world you have small members who have minimal or flat  
growth and other players who are driving the "Arms Race" of keeping  
all the Level2 switches running across the multiple sites etc. Moving  
to a traffic charging model allows the exchange to grow without  
penalising the smaller members which a basic port fee charging model  
did not allow. As a member organisation the bill payers approved the  
change in billing methodology.

	f