[172848] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jul 11 13:10:08 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <53C004DB.4080905@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:08:17 -0700
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> Well... if you make a phone call to a rural area, or a 3rd world =
country, with a horrible system, is it your telco's responsibility to go =
out there and fix it?
>=20
> One might answer, "of course not." It=92s a legitimate position, and =
by this argument, Netflix should be paying for bigger pipes.
Uh, no=85 Because in this case, you=92re making a phone call FROM a =
rural area or 3rd world country with a horrible system to a large metro =
with excellent phone service. Then, you=92re attempting to reverse the =
analogy and ask the service you=92re calling in the large metro to come =
fix your rural 3rd world telco at their expense.
> Then again, I've often argued that the "universal service fund" used =
to subsidize rural carriers - which the large telcos always scream about =
- is legitimate, because when we pick up the phone and "dial," we're =
paying for the ability to reach people, not just empty dial-tone. This =
is also legitimate, and by this argument, Verizon should be paying to =
improve service out to Netflix.
USF is a great idea on paper. Its implementation leaves much to be =
desired. I=92m all for subsidizing GPON to rural areas, but I=92m not so =
excited about the fact that these GPON subsidies that I=92m paying for =
are causing the telcos to implement GPON in rural areas while ignoring =
places like the capital of silicon valley. That=92s right, you can=92t =
get GPON in most of silicon valley, but you can in much of South Dakota =
and even many parts of Alaska.
> Either way, if one is a customer of both, one will end up paying for =
the infrastructure - it=92s 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.
Not really. At the end of the day, this is about whether or not an =
eyeball network should be able to double-dip and force content providers =
to increase their costs in order to subsidize lower pricing for =
residential broadband services. Allowing that to happen comes with a =
number of negative side effects, not the least of which is it creates a =
barrier to competition on the content side.
> Methinks all of the arguments and finger-pointing need to be =
recognized as being mostly posturing for position.
On this, we agree. However, overall, I think that the access networks =
are the ones trying to do real and lasting harm to the consumers in the =
equation, which is a long standing tradition among $CABLECO and $TELCO =
type organizations, most of whom operate more like law firms than =
communications companies.
Owen
