nanog mailing list archives
Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:13:21 -0800
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:40 PM, George Bonser <gbonser () seven com> wrote:
From: JC Dill Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:20 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:If the customer pays the cost of the transport, a provider withbettertransport efficiency / quality ratio wins.This (and everything that followed) assumes the customer has a choice of providers. For most customers who already have Comcast, they don't have any choice for similar broadband services (speeds). So open market principles don't come into play, and Comcast knows it.No, you misunderstood. It doesn't matter if you have only one internet service provider. If the end customer foots the bill, the incentive for innovation is for the *content* provider to strike a balance between quality and cost that the customers want. If the *content* provider foots the bill, innovation is driven in a way that the content providers want. Lets say I have foo.com and bar.com that offer video services and I am on Comcast. If Comcast meters my bandwidth usage and foo.com has good quality with a lower bandwidth use, I use foo. In the other model, if the content providers subsidize the bill, bar.com might be completely bloated but they have deep pockets and can pay the subsidy, they drive foo.com out of business and Comcast still has a congested network.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/15/yahoo-video-no-longer-accepts-video-uploads/ You may find that simply fewer content providers decide it's worth it to play in that space, under those conditions, which results in fewer choices for the consumer, and something closer to a monopoly on the available content to be consumed. People *were* happy with only having three national TV networks to choose from for their major content in the US, right? bar.com doesn't have to drive foo.com out of business; they just have to outlast them in the war of attrition driven by the monopoly holder, until bar.com decides it's no longer worth providing that content anymore. end game--one monopoly access provider, and one giant content source--and a huge barrier to entry keeping anyone else from providing an alternative view of the world. Matt (speaking only for myself, and definitely not for any companies named foo, bar, or any other combination of letters. Or punctuation marks of any sort.)
Current thread:
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks, (continued)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks Jon Lewis (Dec 17)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks Lamar Owen (Dec 17)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 18)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks Kevin Oberman (Dec 18)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks William Allen Simpson (Dec 19)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks Jeffrey S. Young (Dec 17)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks Jeroen van Aart (Dec 17)
- Re: Alacarte Cable and Geeks Andrew Odlyzko (Dec 18)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style JC Dill (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Jay Ashworth (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Matthew Petach (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style mikea (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Mikel Waxler (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style JC Dill (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Mikel Waxler (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style JC Dill (Dec 16)
- RE: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Randy Epstein (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Jack Bates (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style JC Dill (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Mikel Waxler (Dec 16)
- Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style Justin M. Streiner (Dec 16)