This is more like the FedEx / Post Office cooperation... Because we
have a long-distance shipper (FedEx) and a last mile shipper (Post Office).
And, we need for the Post Office to schedule more trucks to pick up from
FedEx.
But the analogy breaks down here - because FedEx can deliver to your
house. And if the Post Office won't do it, then they'll stop routing
through the post office.
Here are ways this breaks down:
- anyone can deliver to my house (competition)
- FedEx pays the post office to deliver to my house [revenue sharing]
- I don't pay to /receive/ packages from the shipper - I pay
indirectly to have them sent
[it costs me nothing to have a mailbox or a front
porch - the roads to my house are paid by taxes]
- I pay for content to be delivered [indirectly], /and/ I pay to
receive it
- There are formal contracts for how packages are delivered and
these are signed long in advance of my getting a package
- The Internet decides much more on-the-fly how packets are delivered
In my area, there are two providers of Internet to the home, but peering
is an expense neither is keen to pay for.
On 07/22/2014 11:55 AM, 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/
--
Alan Robertson <[email protected]> - @OSSAlanR
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me claim from you
at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce
_______________________________________________
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/
