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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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/
