Except that what's actually happening is it's coming "postage due" because the amount paid isn't covering the actual cost of getting it from a to b.
So EITHER, Netflix can pay some of the shipping overage, OR, the recipient can pay it, OR the post office can say "screw it" and raise EVERYONE's rates while muttering "this is why we can't have nice things". D On Jul 22, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > In this case: > > The shipping costs have been paid by the Recipient already: > > Shipper - Netflix, ships it COD > Fedex/UPS - Verizon > Recipient - Residential Customer, pays the shipper for the delivery > > > JBB > > On 7/22/14, 1:55 PM, Derek Balling wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 1:50 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Think about this in terms of mail delivery. Would it be reasonable for >>> FedEx or UPS to decide that they are delivering a lot of things to a >>> warehouse somewhere, so that warehouse should pay them for the privilege of >>> delivering the packages to them (even though the people shipping the >>> packages already paid the shipping)? >> Wait, I fear your analogy has broken. >> >> Shipper - Netflix >> Fedex/UPS - Verizon >> Recipient - Residential Customer >> >> ... Explain to me how the "Shipper" in your analogy has paid Fedex/UPS for >> the shipping? >> >>> Some people say that Netflix needs the local ISPs more than they need >>> Netflix because the customers are on the local ISPs. That's only the case >>> if the customers can't move away from them because there is no competition. >>> Change that fact and then the situation changes and if you have the choice >>> between one ISP that works with everything and another that Netflix doesn't >>> work on, you would find that a lot of people will move to the one that >>> Netflix works on. >> And that's why fixing the competition problem is the key, not trying to >> micromanage the backbone interconnects. >> >>> If this wasn't the case, why would Verizon care that Netflix is claiming >>> that people using their network can't get as an experience? >> Because (hypothetically) it's defamatory. I may not be "threatened" by >> someone saying I {did bad thing}, but I'm still going to raise a stink when >> someone makes it as an assertion of fact. >> >>> This shows that even the minor amount of competition that there is is >>> enough to worry them. >> I think you confuse "worry" with "defense of brand value". >> >> D >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >> http://lopsa.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
