nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why so little traffic from C&W
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () mfnx net>
Date: 07 Jun 2001 11:20:03 -0700
PSI spent a lot of money over the last few years (perhaps more than C&W spent), which may also be why PSI is in financial trouble. In the cable TV industry, cable companies must pay for content (e.g. cable companies pay CNN for the privilege of transmitting CNN on their network). Since PSI has more content than C&W (as evidence by the imbalance), why shouldn't C&W have to compensate PSI for its content just like the cable companies?
if psi had to pay its customers to get exclusive access to that content, then sure as hell c&w would have to pay psi (or not, if the content had no end-eyeballs willing to pay c&w for access to it.) i think the reasoning goes something like "your customers pay you to send this stuff out for them, you should share that money with the folks who do your final delivery for you." (i don't agree with the reasoning, but i think i understand the thoughts being thunk.)
Current thread:
- Why so little traffic from C&W Sean Donelan (Jun 06)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W Paul Vixie (Jun 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 07)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 07)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W J.D. Falk (Jun 07)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W Simon Lockhart (Jun 07)
- more tier 1 definitions was: Why so little traffic from C&W scott w (Jun 07)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W Leo Bicknell (Jun 08)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W bmanning (Jun 08)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W Rachel Warren (Jun 10)
- Re: Why so little traffic from C&W J.D. Falk (Jun 07)
- Re: Definition of Tier-1 RJ Atkinson (Jun 08)
- Re: Definition of Tier-1 E.B. Dreger (Jun 08)