[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? Things get more interesting when content is available via one IAP, and not available (or greatly degraded) through another IAP in the same market. If IAPs abandon the current universal connectivity model for the Internet, expect a huge bidding war for content to break out. Universal connectivity was the one advantage the Internet had over private online services. It also let IAPs avoid paying content producers. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
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
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.
That should read: they would NOT mind paying the extra 8c. --pushpendra
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Sean Donelan wrote:
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?
This worked for FoxSports because the limited number of channels available via most cable systems creates strong brand identification and concentrates subscribers. Imagine if TCI had 400,000 channels instead of 40 with the same subscriber base and no one channel having a viewership more than .01% of the subscriber base. Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
participants (3)
-
Mike Leber -
Pushpendra Mohta -
Sean Donelan