On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:23:38 -0400, Derek Balling wrote:
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".
who is claiming that the amount paid isn't covering the actual cost of
getting it?
Verizon is claiming that they have extra bandwidth available throughout
their network, Level3 is claiming that they have extra bandwidth
available throughout their network. The only place there is a bottleneck
is at the router between them, and (as a PR stunt), Level3 is offering
to pay for the network card to connect them.
ISPs are also making record profits, so it's not like they are hurting
for money.
So what evidence is there that the costs are not covered?
And if they aren't covered, why are they not covered for going to
Netflix, but are covered if they go to another site and use the same
bandwidth?
David Lang
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
