[discuss] [ISOC_KE] Fwd: Who should Pay for Netflix?
ali at hussein.me.ke
Mon Mar 24 04:37:01 UTC 2014
Thanks for sharing. That is a compelling argument which in my humble opinion telcos have failed to convince me. In fact I think the argument is now moot as more and more telcos are entering the triple play space.
I'm however really curious how this issue will pan out since its a mix of regulatory interventions and free market forces. This argument by telcos is forcing players like Google and Facebook to enter the infrastructure space.
+254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Patrick Ryan <pryan at pryan.net> wrote:
> This is, in many ways, isn't this a remix of the "sending party pays" discussion? There are lots of analysis of this available, although a lot of it is covered in a report that Scott Markus put together a couple years ago: "Network Operators and Content Providers: Who Bears the Cost?" It's here on SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1926768
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] [ISOC_KE] Fwd: Who should Pay for Netflix?
>> To: Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
>> Cc: "isoc at orion.my.co.ke" <isoc at orion.my.co.ke>, 1Net List <discuss at 1net.org>, KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>> Hi Mwendwa,
>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva
>> <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com> wrote:
>> > The answer seems to lie on the text below. As a consumer, I don't see
>> > why I should pay for a service I don't use.
>> This is a cleverly crafted, but erroneous argument spun by highly
>> profitable telcos who don't want to upgrade their networks to the
>> bandwidth levels that we should all enjoy at much lower costs. Look
>> at the places like Singapore or South Korea or even places in the US
>> where Google fiber project has rolled out. ISPs can be profitable at
>> much lower price points delivering much higher speeds to consumers.
>> They just don't want to do it this way, as they are quite comfortable
>> making windfall profits while delivering as little bandwidth as they
>> >>> When Netflix delivered its movies by mail, the cost of delivery was
>> >>> included in the price their customer paid. It would've been neither right
>> >>> nor legal for Netflix to demand a customer's neighbors pay the cost of
>> >>> delivering his movie. Yet that's effectively what Mr. Hastings is
>> >>> demanding here, and in rather self-righteous fashion. Netflix may now be
>> >>> using an Internet connection instead of the Postal Service, but the same
>> >>> principle applies. If there's a cost of delivering Mr. Hastings's movies
>> >>> at the quality level he desires - and there is - then it should be borne
>> >>> by Netflix and recovered in the price of its service.
>> > But that answer negates net-neutrality principles : All internet
>> > traffic should be treated equal. It's a tough debate
>> It's pretty simple. I pay my ISP to deliver packets to me. i pay
>> them for an "all you can eat" service. If I choose to stream movies
>> or the ICANN meeting or music or just email, it makes no difference.
>> They still should provide me with the service I pay for, simple
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> patrick s. ryan
> t: +1.512.751.5346
> web | g+ profile
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss