>Nobody has a free ride in this, though. Netflix/Hulu/whoever is paying TV and
>movie companies for the right to redistribute content via the Internet, and is
>paying Akamai/Limelight/whoever >for bandwidth to do the actual distribution.
>The end-user is paying Netflix for access to their collection of movies, and
>is paying you for Internet connectivity in order to receive bits from the
>>Internet (in this case, bits from Netflix).
Sure, That is all true and relevent. BUT... The reality is that Content
providers, Consumers, and Regulators are making assumption on other people's
(access provider's) business models that they have no right to make.
The fact is... Access Providers have provided services and priced services on
the over-subscription model since day one, and its no secret to any Internet
professional.
Content providers are building business models based on network designs that
dont yet exist large scale (super high capacity undersubscribed bandwidth), and
trying to force new rule upon Access Providers to change to a no or low
oversubscription model. And consumers are assuming that they have something
that they dont, and that was never promised to them either. That is poor
planning on the Content provider and Consumer's part, and they are trying to
hold Access Providers responsible for the content provider's poor and
unrealistic planning.
I am NOT against content providers and consumers encouraging and driving Access
Providers to step up the game and offer higher capacities at lower prices, and
including more for the same price. That is what Market pressure and competition
is all about. What I am against is "forcing" Access providers to do it. And
I'm against the world suggesting Access Providers some how are obligated to, or
they are the bad guy.
I think its wonderful that Netflix and hulu want to offer consumers good value,
and its nice that Money Trees are willing to join forces with these content
providers to try serve all of America over night. But what is wrong is
assuming that Access Providers, the companies that actually have to build
something of distance, should be capable of matching the growth rate to upgrade
capacity to all of America overnight.
The NetFlix model is flawed. They build a race car without first building a
Race Track. Who's gonna be interested in building the race track, if their is
no upside offered to the builder of some sort?
Facts are... If you want to get to places quicker, you can buy a Ferrari, but
it isn't going to solve the problem.. There is still a speed limit, to keep it
safe. There is still a HOV lane to keep down congestion, and the one man
Ferrari driver still cant use it. And there might be tolls every now and then
where needed to help pay for the mainenance of the road. The Road Owners make
the rules of the Road.
>And I'd be fine with charging my customers one penny per bit (or buy a whole
>byte for only six cents!) but the customers probably wouldn't like that plan
>very much at all. If your users are >okay with this, go right ahead.
That demonstrates exactly the problem. My customers would not like that for pay
method either. Nobody's customers would today, because they have been let to
believe that they are entitled to better. False misleading marketing needs to
be stopped, and consumers need to be educated. Customers "shouldn;t " have a
problem with paying for what they use. BUt they do. Why is this? They have no
problem paying for their electric, water, Soda, gas, cell phone minutes, or
whatever other product based on what they are used. But there is this HUge
hippocracy against Access Providers.
At the end of the day, this all boils down to what over subscription rate is
fair for a Access Provider to deliver, and still advertise their product as a
given speed bandwidth.
And again, this really is a decission for the Access PRovider that has stats
and costs for its own operations, which is confidential information.
Sure, I agree, Cable and FIOS are around the corner, and if we (competitive
access providers) dont adapt and upgrade, we will be left behind.
But... I'll leave with one critical point......
How do we accomplish upgrading and adapting in the faster possible way? With
Money, right? How do we get money? We need to raise the funds to make these
upgrades sooner than later. I see two low hanging fruit sources to put up this
money.... Consumers that can save money by using our service and Content
providers paying their share, now when we still have leverage to encourage them
to pony up the cash to fund the upgrades.
I know what happens when Docsis3 and FIOS come, and the WISP network is NOT yet
upgraded. It means lost customers. I wish I could upgrade everything over
night, but I cant, not without money. But the more I charge today, the bigger
chance I have to earn more money to re-invest, so I'm in a stronger position to
compete when Docsis3 and FIOS come.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: David E. Smith
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] netflix/hulu IP's
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:20, Tom DeReggi <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> wrote:
Who's gonna pay for that? Should I have to give up my profits this year, so
that it can be re-invested into my network once again, so Hulu and NetFlix
can continue to get rich?
If you want to keep residential customers in a competitive market, yeah,
you're gonna have to ease back on the profit-taking and build out your network.
(I noted that you said you primarily serve business customers, so keep in
mind that "you" is the generic ISP, not you personally.)
I am sick and tired of this attitude that "consumers are entitled" and
"content providers are entitled". They are not entitled to a free ride.
Nobody has a free ride in this, though. Netflix/Hulu/whoever is paying TV and
movie companies for the right to redistribute content via the Internet, and is
paying Akamai/Limelight/whoever for bandwidth to do the actual distribution.
The end-user is paying Netflix for access to their collection of movies, and is
paying you for Internet connectivity in order to receive bits from the Internet
(in this case, bits from Netflix).
Sure... I'm perfectly fine with the bandwdith management method of control.
Bandwdith limit video web sites to 64kbps, and for $9.95 I'll bump it up to
1mbps.
And I'd be fine with charging my customers one penny per bit (or buy a whole
byte for only six cents!) but the customers probably wouldn't like that plan
very much at all. If your users are okay with this, go right ahead.
Whats important to me is that laws are not made that empower moochers to
have the right to unlimited mooching, at the expense of honorable
businessmen access providers.
Who, in this scenario, is mooching?
David Smith
MVN.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
