Yesterday I was called by a journalist that wanted to know whether volume based debiting would be a disaster for Internet or not. My view is that it will not be a disaster, it exists for example in Australia, but many efforts to try something like it have failed simply because the cost for the billing system is too large.
What I now understand is that this article has connection to another article (also in Swedish, English translation here) about a luxurious Internet. That article does not at all talk about volume based debiting, but instead something that I would call NGN. A network design where ISPs exchange not IP packets, but services. And only approved services are available. Approved as in they have paid, not approved as in works, interesting for the customers and what not.
That kind of network design is bad, really bad, and have a great impact on competition and innovation — part from of course being very expensive to build.
One example of such design is the IPX network design by the GSM Association. I have already talked about this in one post here, but also had a presentation (PDF) that as one topic explains the bad things with IPX. Just do a search in Google and you will though see how much cool-aid is served by the proponents. IPX – A Key Enabler for IP Communication Ecosystem, High-Quality Global IP Network Prepares To Go Commercial.
There is already a model for how ISPs do get money from their customers. Claiming the service providers can provide their services for free is just bogus. The service providers are also customers of some ISP. The problem is that that ISP have given the service provider access too cheaply, or else the ISP community have got the money, right? The flash animation below (click for next step in animation) show relevant parts for peering and traffic exchange from the presentation I mention above.
Brief example of economical model for traffic exchange