peering charges?

Pushpendra Mohta pushp at CERF.NET
Mon Jan 27 08:54:37 UTC 1997

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. 

Not speaking for TCI
Pushpendra Mohta          pushp at        +1 619 455 3908

More information about the NANOG mailing list