nanog mailing list archives
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:41:12 -0700
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com> wrote:
Benson, The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban) areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area and unlike a bookstore if someone wants broadband in an area they can't drive to a larger town and bring a bagful home the way we can with books.
But if that's the case, then Brett has no issue. As Benson noted: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons () queuefull net>
wrote:Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn'tjustabout bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. Itmaybe that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as the market evolves. Similar to how I was disappointed by the loss of my local bookstore, but still buy all my stuff from Amazon. ... I hear Brett essentially asking for Netflix to do more for him than it does for big ISPs, because his small rural business model can't compete with the big guys.
Brett's concerns seem to center around his ability to be cost-competitive with the big guys in his area...which implies there *are* big guys in his area to have to compete with. If the big guys don't want to build into the rural area, and aren't competing with Brett, he can charge accordingly (the scenario Scott outlines). If the big guys *have* built into the area where Brett is serving users, then we're outside of Scott's model, and into Benson's model, and it may well be a case of the local bookstore not being able to compete with Amazon anymore. While having no competitors in an area might suck for the *consumers*, I don't think it's the situation that Brett is facing; I think he's talking about trying to compete with large carriers who have indeed built out into his area, and have a large economy of scale on their side. I could be wrong, though; I often am. Thanks! Matt
Current thread:
- Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Benson Schliesser (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Scott Helms (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Matthew Petach (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix George Herbert (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Matthew Petach (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Scott Helms (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Matthew Petach (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Jared Mauch (Jul 14)
- Message not available
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Brett Glass (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Mike Lyon (Jul 14)
- Message not available
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Brett Glass (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Mike Lyon (Jul 14)
- Message not available
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Brett Glass (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Matthew Petach (Jul 14)
- Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Scott Helms (Jul 14)