> There's the bug in your logic: A packet to London may touch less routers Regardless of the number of routes, the ISP knows before relaying your packet that c

> There's the bug in your logic: A packet to London may touch less routers Regardless of the number of routes, the ISP knows before relaying your packet that certain destinations require the use of paid traffic while other can be accessed with peered traffic. I agree with the grand-parent: it seems strange that ISP are not charging more for access to IPs that are outside their peering agreements. I am not suggesting it; I just find it strange that they are not trying to push it on us like the mobile operators are trying to do giving you free access to Facebook [1] and their own music stores while charging for access to other sites. [1] 0.facebook.com