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