[discuss] [ISOC_KE] Fwd: Who should Pay for Netflix?
pryan at pryan.net
Mon Mar 24 03:01:28 UTC 2014
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
> >>> 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
> >>> using an Internet connection instead of the Postal Service, but the
> >>> principle applies. If there's a cost of delivering Mr. Hastings's
> >>> at the quality level he desires - and there is - then it should be
> >>> 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*
web <http://www.pryan.net> | g+
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss