Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:58:02 EST

In a message dated 11/9/2002 4:48:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

>       On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>     > The term "accounting" is the accepted one for what we are talking 
> about.
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> You misspelled "waste of money."  This is the Internet, not the PSTN.
> We'd rather deliver the traffic than fail to deliver the traffic in favor
> of delivering a bill instead.
> 

[MAP] We're not neccessarily talking about "billing" or "money" when we 
identify a requirement for "accounting" for emergency services. The 
requirement for "accounting" is to be able to detect who used the service in 
order to provide for dectection of misuse as well as to understand the 
pattern of use for future administration of the service.

Besides, just because you don't want to "bill" for service in your network, 
doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to do it. The PSTN always operated 
on the basis that delivering the traffic was more important, so if the 
billing recording capability was lost, the switch still set up calls (free). 
But no carrier could stay in business if it did that for too long. I can't 
imagine that any Internet-based telephony service is going to be any 
different, but you can try if you want.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:11:26 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > Just because you don't want to "bill" for service in your network,
    > doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to do it.

That would make it "permitted" not a "requirement."  Even if you don't
realize it, I think you're beginning to see my point.  :-)

                                -Bill

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:43:11 -0500

> Besides, just because you don't want to "bill" for service in your 

ISPs bill for service.  They bill based solely on IP layer properties 
(or lower layer
ones, like what speed physical link does the customer have in place 
from that ISP).
Most ISPs perform flat-rate billing, tiered by link access max 
bandwidth.  Some
offer a kind of usage-based billing (e.g. 90th percentile of the 
traffic measurements
where instantaneous bandwidth on the customer link is measured via SNMP 
counters
every N minutes).  None of that gets into *upper-layer* services such 
as VoIP
or FTP or EMAIL.

> doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to do it. The PSTN always 
> operated on the basis that delivering the traffic was more important, 
> so if the billing recording capability was lost, the switch still set 
> up calls (free). But no carrier could stay in business if it did that 
> for too long. I can't imagine that any Internet-based telephony 
> service is going to be any different, but you can try if you want.

So your real requirement is that the specs *not preclude* a carrier 
from billing,
not that the specs *support* billing.

But please don't increase the capital costs for all carriers just so 
that NCS,
which is NOT a carrier at all, can be happy that it changed the 
Internet architecture.

Mumble.

Ran

---

From: "Krishnan Padmanabhan, Packet Strategies LLC" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:37:30 -0500

Via Windows Messenger or MSN Messenger, you can subscribe to the VoIP services offered by several service providers. At least two of these (I haven't tried the others) provide per minute billing for the IP Telephony calls, call details, history, etc. They also appear to offer, in addition to IP telephony, the usual internet access services. Would these offer a counter-example to the point you make here?
Krishnan.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: RJ Atkinson 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Cc: [email-masked] ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Atlanta ieprep Agenda

  Ran

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:04:03 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Krishnan Padmanabhan, wrote:
    > Via Windows Messenger or MSN Messenger, you can subscribe to the
    > VoIP services offered by several service providers. At least two of
    > these (I haven't tried the others) provide per minute billing for
    > the IP Telephony calls, call details, history, etc. They also appear
    > to offer, in addition to IP telephony, the usual internet access
    > services. Would these offer a counter-example to the point you make
    > here?

Yes.  This more demonstrates that we live in a large and diverse world
than demonstrating anything in particular about business models which
bundle L3 and L7 services, however.  There are also database application
service providers who would happily sell their customers ISP services, and
ISPs who would happily sell their customers db ASP services, but that
business model is also not taking the world by storm.

You're absolutely correct that you've provided a valid specific
counterexample, however Ran was characterizing business practices
generally, and there would be far more people in the world giving away
these services for free, for example, than there are bundling them
together to bill for them.

                                -Bill

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:23:42 -0500

On Tuesday, Nov 12, 2002, at 07:37 America/Montreal, Krishnan 
Padmanabhan, Packet Strategies LLC wrote:

> Via Windows Messenger or MSN Messenger, you can subscribe to the VoIP 
> services offered by several service providers. At least two of these 
> (I haven't tried the others) provide per minute billing for the IP 
> Telephony calls, call details, history, etc. They also appear to 
> offer, in addition to IP telephony, the usual internet access 

While very interesting, they aren't a counter-example.  My example was 
talking
about traditional ISPs, for which the only real services are (1) unicast
best-effort forwarding of IP packets and in some cases also (2) 
multicast
forwarding (usually with some additional constraints).  Such 
traditional ISPs
aren't even *aware* of what applications above IP that a given user 
might
be using at a given instant of time, normally.

Ran