nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
From: Robert Drake <rdrake () direcpath com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:59 -0400
On 7/11/2014 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
If you're a competitor to the monopoly then you don't get access to those funds. It sucks for you, but that's just how it works. The county/state government has determined that they need to pay someone to make their network better in that region. They chose to pay the monopoly (whoever that is) and it wasn't you.Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go out there and fix it?One might answer, "of course not." It's a legitimate position, and by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes.Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about - is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. This is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon should be paying to improve service out to Netflix.
It's the monopolies job to ensure good connectivity to Netflix. Oh, the monopoly is Comcast and they have a Netflix caching box but you don't?
That is the cost of doing business in a rural market. You've got a few choices. Build out a fiber backbone to larger or more diverse markets, buy more transit, or go out of business.
I service customers in small markets. Frequently they've got underpowered circuits because the incumbent won't sell MetroE or charges astronomical amounts for everything. If those were my only customers I'm not sure what I would do because I don't like their networks. I want to upgrade them but I'm being held back by various things. I've had situations where <Monopoly> entered a building at my expense to provide me fiber service so I could upgrade the users speed, then use that new fiber to undercut me on prices and take all the customers.
People say the exclusive agreements for multi-dwelling units were bad for the little guy, but the truth is that the little guy could use exclusive agreements to allow the community to collective bargain for better internet.
Now that those are gone, the competition is who can bribe the property manager more in pay-per-home connect fees.
Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for the infrastructure - it's more about gorillas fighting, which bill it shows up on, who ends up pocketing more of the profits, and how many negative side-effects result.No, it isn't. It's about monopolies telling a large company that isn't a monopoly that they need to pay them money to stay in business.
Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be recognized as being mostly posturing for position.Miles Fidelman
Current thread:
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix, (continued)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Miles Fidelman (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix rwebb () ropeguru com (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Jim Popovitch (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Tei (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Jay Ashworth (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Miles Fidelman (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Geoffrey Keating (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Robert Drake (Jul 12)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Blake Dunlap (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Brian Loveland (Jul 10)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix joel jaeggli (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Blake Hudson (Jul 11)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Christopher Morrow (Jul 11)