[discuss] [ISOC_KE] Fwd: Who should Pay for Netflix?

[Patrick Ryan]

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
<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
> can.
>
>
> >
> >>> 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
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "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
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>


-- 
*patrick s. ryan*
t: +1.512.751.5346
web <http://www.pryan.net> | g+
profile<https://plus.google.com/101796592759188137838/about>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140324/7450824f/attachment.html>