[172847] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Fri Jul 11 13:05:13 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
> 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.
<hobbyhorse>
No. Nope.
DAMNIT, NO.
Why is it that whenever we are having these conversations -- be they about
Netflix and Verizon, or restaurants and waiters -- that we always tacitly
*approve* of the idea that the zero sum game of money includes only the
vendors and the customers?
Why the *hell* do we not assume that perhaps, just maybe, *the company
in the middle* ought to take some of that extra cost out of their profits?
Have they succeeded in convincing us -- the paying customers -- that
corporate profit margins are sacred? That they should *never* have to
pay some of that cost themselves?
Why?
</hobbyhorse>
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
