Hi Mwendwa,

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva
<Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:

The answer seems to lie on the text below. As a consumer, I don't see

why I should pay for a service I don't use.

This is a cleverly crafted, but erroneous argument spun by highly
profitable telcos who don't want to upgrade their networks to the
bandwidth levels that we should all enjoy at much lower costs.  Look
at the places like Singapore or South Korea or even places in the US
where Google fiber project has rolled out.  ISPs can be profitable at
much lower price points delivering much higher speeds to consumers.
They just don't want to do it this way, as they are quite comfortable
making windfall profits while delivering as little bandwidth as they
can.

When Netflix delivered its movies by mail, the cost of delivery was

included in the price their customer paid.  It would've been neither right

nor legal for Netflix to demand a customer's neighbors pay the cost of

delivering his movie.  Yet that's effectively what Mr. Hastings is

demanding here, and in rather self-righteous fashion.  Netflix may now be

using an Internet connection instead of the Postal Service, but the same

principle applies.  If there's a cost of delivering Mr. Hastings's movies

at the quality level he desires - and there is - then it should be borne

by Netflix and recovered in the price of its service.

But that answer negates net-neutrality principles : All internet

traffic should be treated equal. It's a tough debate

It's pretty simple.  I pay my ISP to deliver packets to me.  i pay
them for an "all you can eat" service.  If I choose to stream movies
or the ICANN meeting or music or just email, it makes no difference.
They still should provide me with the service I pay for, simple


--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel