he family's home provider to the serving network provider. The video on-demand provider bills the family for their usage, but also pays an NSP to move its video traffic by the megabyte. That NSP's network does not extend all the way to Wyoming, where the family is driving, SO it hands off the traffic to another NSP with whom it maintains a "bill and keep" arrangement. The second NSP delivers the traffic to the serving mobile provider. Now there's a problem. The video stream requires a connection rate the serving mobile provider normally only makes available to specific corporate customers. Does it reject the traffic, or dynamically configure the connection to provide more video bandwidth? This special connection would likely incur a hefty charge, but who, other than the end user, would be billed for This is a bit of a fanciful example. The point is that networks are becoming more dynamic and more interconnected, and services are becoming more configurable and readily available. As a result, there are far more considerations for how companies will bill and pay each other in this highly stratified marketplace. Potential models exist in the way long distance services and access charges are settled, but it will require an enormous, multi-industry effort to organize a standards initiative. Wary observers will also note that there is a lot of hype surrounding interactive, on-demand, and bandwidth intensive services. It seems a foregone conclusion that they will succeed and change the communications marketplace. This is a poor assumption because so-called "killer applications" have not been identified. It is not a matter of whether people will want the services, but whether and how much they will be willing to pay for them. A household that already pays for cable, Internet, landline and mobile services may not be willing to spend the extra dollars for services that are more gratuitous than necessary. At what point will users become overwhelmed by the range of choices, and opt for none of them? If operators choose to hed