Fwd: Who should Pay for Netflix?
Listers Apologies for cross posting. I find the blog by Reed Hastings pretty interesting especially after his recent deal with Comcast. Ali Hussein +254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:
From: "Luigi Gambardella" <luigi.gambardella@gmail.com> Date: March 22, 2014 at 7:53:10 PM GMT+3 To: "ali@3mice.com" <ali@3mice.com> Subject: Who should Pay for Netflix? Reply-To: luigi.gambardella@gmail.com
Se non legge correttamente questo messaggio, cliccare qui
Who should Pay for Netflix?
Dear friends,
I’d like to share with you a great blog post by Jim Cicconi, in response to Reed Hasting’s recent blog.
I share the view that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the net neutrality debate. While sharing the principle of Open Internet, we cannot accept an interpretation of this principle as “free Internet, free lunch”.
I believe that also in Europe we should avoid implementing any measure going against innovation, better services and that at the end would restrict the freedom of the users.
Luigi Gambardella
Who should Pay for Netflix?
Posted by: Jim Cicconi on March 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm
I saw Reed Hasting’s blog <http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html> yesterday from Netflix asserting in rather dramatic fashion (with diagrams) that ISPs should build facilities (he said provide, but those facilities have to be built) to accept all of Netflix’s content – indeed all of the content on the Internet – without charge. Failure to do so, according to Mr. Hastings, was a violation of “strong net neutrality rules” and bad public policy. I thought it might be helpful to unpack those assertions so we could get right down to the core of Netflix’s rather radical proposition — that people who don’t subscribe to Netflix should nonetheless pay for Netflix. Here are some undisputed facts upon which everyone should agree.
First, let’s all accept the fact that the advent of streaming video is driving bandwidth consumption by consumers to record levels. Increased bandwidth consumption and faster broadband networks like our Gigapower service in Austin, Texas (and soon Dallas) are requiring all service providers to drive more fiber into their networks to create the capacity necessary to deliver those services to consumers, whether the service providers are delivering a wireless or a wireline product. This phenomenon was at the heart of our Project VIP investment announcement in November 2012 and it is true of companies like Cogent, Level 3 and CDNs like Netflix as well.
Second, we should accept that companies must build additional capacity to handle this traffic. If Netflix was delivering, for example, 10 Terabytes of data in 2012 and increased demand causes them to deliver 20 Terabytes of data in 2013, they will have to build, or hire someone to build, the capacity necessary to handle that increased volume of traffic. That increase in traffic from Netflix is, by the way, not only the result of a likely increase in online viewing by existing subscribers, but also due to an increase in Netflix’s customer base (it announced a 33% increase in subscribers from 2012 to 2013 – good for Netflix).
Third, if Netflix is delivering that increased volume of traffic to, say, AT&T, we should accept the fact that AT&T must be ready to build additional ports and transport capacity to accept the new volume of capacity as a consequence of Netflix’s good business fortune. And I think we can all accept the fact that business service costs are ultimately borne by consumers.
Mr. Hastings blog post then really comes down to which consumers should pay for the additional bandwidth being delivered to Netflix’s customers. In the current structure, the increased cost of building that capacity is ultimately borne by Netflix subscribers. It is a cost of doing business that gets incorporated into Netflix’s subscription rate. In Netflix’s view, that’s unfair. In its view, those additional costs, caused by Netflix’s increasing subscriber counts and service usage, should be borne by all broadband subscribers – not just those who sign up for and use Netflix service.
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. That’s how every other form of commerce works in our country. It’s simply not fair for Mr. Hastings to demand that ISPs provide him with zero delivery costs – at the high quality he demands – for free. Nor is it fair that other Internet users, who couldn’t care less about Netflix, be forced to subsidize the high costs and stresses its service places on all broadband networks.
As we all know, there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost. Mr. Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it. But it’s not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked.
http://www.attpublicpolicy.com/
Per cancellarsi cliccare qui | Unsubscribe
Email inviata con MailUp Con MailUp la cancellazione e' sicura
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.
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 -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh
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
That is a compelling argument which in my humble opinion telcos have failed to convince me. In fact I think the argument is now moot as more and more telco are entering into the triple play space. I'm however really curious how this issue will pan out since its a mix of regulatory interventions and free market forces. This argument by telcos is forcing players like Google and Facebook to enter the infrastructure space. Ali Hussein +254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2014, at 5:42 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
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
I am not very familiar with the infrastructure side of things, but from his blog post countering Netflix's argument is does make quite some sense. I guess what the ISPs are saying, we can only afford this much bandwidth, which to a lot of users is fine, unless, you are watching Netflix movies, in which case you would need your bandwidth at double or triple the existing connection speeds. What the ISPs should do is make those consumers asking for Bandwidth guarantees to pay extra for those services, and then pass on those costs. They have always done that, only this time, they are charging the originator of the content to charge his customers on their behalf. Easier to manage. Makes sense. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
That is a compelling argument which in my humble opinion telcos have failed to convince me. In fact I think the argument is now moot as more and more telco are entering into the triple play space.
I'm however really curious how this issue will pan out since its a mix of regulatory interventions and free market forces. This argument by telcos is forcing players like Google and Facebook to enter the infrastructure space.
*Ali Hussein*
+254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim<http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2014, at 5:42 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngigi%40at.co.ke
The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
-- *Regards,* *Wait**haka Ngigi* Chief Executive Officer | Alliance Technologies | MCK Nairobi Synod Building T + 254 (0) 20 2333 471 |Office Mobile: +254 786 28 28 28 | M + 254 737 811 000 www.at.co.ke
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Ngigi Waithaka <ngigi@at.co.ke> wrote:
I am not very familiar with the infrastructure side of things, but from his blog post countering Netflix's argument is does make quite some sense.
I guess what the ISPs are saying, we can only afford this much bandwidth
Yes, that is what they are saying...but it is an untruth.
, which to a lot of users is fine, unless, you are watching Netflix movies, in which case you would need your bandwidth at double or triple the existing connection speeds.
What the ISPs should do is make those consumers asking for Bandwidth guarantees to pay extra for those services, and then pass on those costs.
the bandwidth in question is NOT the end users bandwidth, in other words, it's not in the last mile, it is in the "middle mile" at the point where the ISPs (who Netflix pay already to deliver their content) meet the consumers ISP. This connection happens at peering points like KIXP. Comcast throttled netflix at these peering points by NOT adding more ports to allow for the greater bandwidth that is caused the the demand FROM comcast subscribers. Netflix is NOT consuming bandwidth, the customers of Comcast are using this bandwidth, which, of course, they have already paid for !! To make an analogy, it would be like a matatu or bus company charging you for transport, then also trying to charge your employer for getting you to your job.
They have always done that, only this time, they are charging the originator of the content to charge his customers on their behalf.
The "originator of the content", which I assume you mean Netflix, already pays their ISP to deliver this content. In the "best effort" Internet model we have had for the last 3 decades, the customer only pays one time to send and receive content. This breaks that model. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
participants (4)
-
Ali Hussein -
McTim -
Mwendwa Kivuva -
Ngigi Waithaka