Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: peering charges?
From: Pushpendra Mohta <pushp () CERF NET>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:54:37 -0800 (PST)

Sean Donelan writes:
[How the Content Distributors split these fees among themselves 
(for example peering vs. transit) should have no conceptual bearing on
the economics of content distribution costs between Provider and
Consumer.  In other worlds, leave the IAPs out of this debate of who
pays for the content distribution.  Treat this as a cost of doing
business and pay the IAP]

You are forgetting your first rule, follow the money.  As long as IAPs
have money, they won't be left out of the debate.

FoxSports-Midwest recently announced they were going to start charging
cable companies 8 cents per subscriber to carry NHL hockey games.  TCI
balked, and was going to drop FoxSports.  FoxSports ran a crawl-line
across the bottom of the last NHL hockey game saying TCI customers would
no longer be able to watch NHL hockey.  What do you think the final
outcome was?  Did TCI end up paying FoxSports, or did FoxSports end
up paying TCI?

What do you think the final outcome will be ? If TCI cant find a way to
recoup these costs from subscriber or advertising fees, the costs will
trickle down to the users.  Just because FoxSports went after  TCI for
what would seem like convenience of billing and collection doesnt mean
that the end user wont end up with the tab for the distribution of this
Compelling Content. And I am sure if TCI subscribers want that content,
they would mind paying the extra 8c. 

--pushpendra
Not speaking for TCI
Pushpendra Mohta          pushp () cerf net        +1 619 455 3908

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]