On 9/13/2010 9:15 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I pay for access at home, my employer pays for access here at work, and Google, Apple, etc. pay for access (unless they've moved into the DFZ, which only happens when it's beneficial for all players that you're there). Why should we pay extra for what we're already supposed to be getting. If the ISps can't deliver what we're already paying for, they're broken.
It gets more confusing. See media licensing such as ESPN3, which is provider based. Unfortunately, they treat it the same as they do the cable channel, so if you don't run video services, it puts you in a really bad position. It's also doesn't scale. Sure, with just ESPN3, we might be able to do some billing stuffers, but what about the next 50 video streaming sites that decide they want to do provider based licensing. How many stuffers can you put in with a bill?
Jack
