On Aug 6, 2012, at 07:21 , Leo Bicknell <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote: > In a message written on Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:49:07AM -0500, jamie rishaw > wrote: >> discuss. > > It's a short sighted result created by the lack of competition. > > IP access is a commodity service, with thin margins that will only > get thinner. Right now those margins are being propped up in many > locations by monopoly or near-monopoly status, which creates a > situation where companies neither need to compete on features and > service quality nor do they need to turn to those areas to maintain > a profit. > > If there was meaningful competition, the margin on raw IP access > would decline and companies would have to turn to value-add services > to maintain a profit margin. From the simple up-sell of a static > IP address that some do today, to a fee for BGP, a fee for DDOS > mitigation, and so on. These are all things it's not uncommon to > see when buying service in carrier netural colos where there is > competition. > > There is no technological problem here. BGP to the end user has a > cost. The current business climate is causing people to cut all > possible costs and offering no incentive to innvovate and up-charge. > > Which leads to an interesting question. If on top of your $100/month > "business class Internet" the provider were to charge $50/month for > "BGP Access" to cover their costs of having a human configure the > session, larger access gear to handle the routes, and larger backbone > gear to deal with a larger routing table, would you still be as > gung ho about BGP to the business? >
I'd pay it in a heartbeat. Owen
