Re: Why is Mark Zuckerberg angry at critics in India?

Suresh (et al),

Implicit in your question is the reality that the business model of a 
"transit network" may have become obsolete. I would then ask; what 
justification can we provide for a business model if it is incapable of 
securing a sufficient revenue stream to survive?

The next question we should be asking is; what services and features 
will create the conditions to solicit payment at a reasonable price for 
service?

Reduced to it's most simplistic model, the Internet is paid for by two 
distinct groups, ie, the consumer and the businesses who wish to reach 
the consumers. (Admittedly, governments in many cases also absorbs costs 
- but for this discussion let's leave that issue for later in this 
discourse.)

If we accept that each group has an upper limit on what they will spend 
based on the implicit value to each, the network itself must rely solely 
on that level of finance in order to survive.

Consumers obviously want video content, closely followed by services, 
such as messaging, VoIP, and browsing along with several others which I 
am not going to list.

Businesses want access to the consumer to make it easy for them to 
surrender their money. This includes advertising to attract the 
potential customer as well as the ability for the customer to make a 
purchase.

But what value do we see from the portion of the gross revenue generated 
from these two sources do we see from the profit taken by these 
connectivity corporations? Additionally, if we were to remove the cost 
for accounting and collections from these networks, what percentage of 
the total cost might be further reduced?

And instead of allowing that revenue to vanish, what percentage of the 
entire gross billing could now be directed towards increasing and 
maintaining the network's capacity?

I submit that if that amount approaches or surpasses 20%, one would have 
to make a very compelling case to continue the business model we 
currently employ in order to justify it, don't you think?

Cordially,

Ken DiPietro
Cumberland MD

On 01/03/2016 05:52 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> For eyeball networks fine but what about transit providers?
>
> And what when a provider is both eyeball (retail) and transit (wholesale) as is common in at least some markets?
>
> --srs
>
>> On 03-Jan-2016, at 3:46 PM, ken <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> More to the point, the cost to carry traffic has fallen through the floor. To me, the question isn't whether each network should be allowed to charge for every bit that is carried, it should be whether each carrier is building our sufficient capacity to meet the demand.