tdgeek:

 

charliebrownnz:

 

sbiddle:

 

I think the supermarket analogy is very relevant - but not in the way any of you are actually discussing.

 

Food products do have geographic restrictions - companies such as Nestle sell products globally, with many made in only a small number of countries. Products a for different markets have different recipes, tastes and different labeling requirements in different markets. All of these are ultimately geographic restrictions to restrict product to specific markets. Here in NZ we're one of a small number of countries in the world where parallel importing is legal, so we've been exposed to many such products. Some companies do a good job of this (such as labeling products to comply with FSANZ requirements) and some do a poor job.

 

So where does this lead?

 

A certain supermarket chain in NZ did start to import some products from their parent in Australia to test the water, bypassing the local distributor of products. I won't go into naming brands or products here but it's safe to say a few big brands were involved. The attitude was simply that they could source stock cheaper in AU than they could in NZ, so they'd simply import it to force the local distributor to cut prices. Meanwhile they're expecting the NZ distributor to still fund promotions, merchandising and so on.

 

The supermarket business is different to TV - you're selling physical goods that can't be delivered digitally, but at the end of the day the geographic distribution models are similar. I'm all for open markets and free trade and this is one of the reasons I fundamentally refuse to buy fair trade products as it's nothing but a subsidy to fund growers who continue to flood markets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The geographic distribution models are similar in the context of a checkout in a supermarket charging extra to the person that lives in a town down the road solely because they live in a different address. No extra costs are incurred by selling to the person down the road, its just they charge more because they can. The context you are referring to is a case where geographic borders matter due to a tangible cost of physically moving a product - content has no such cost.

 

In fact, the supermarket analogy would be more accurate if you have separate checkout lanes in a physical store for "out of towners" - in these lanes a sub-contractor clips the ticket, and they only sell apples and oranges (of which you can't buy only one), if you want bananas you have to go through another check-out lane and buy off another sub-contractor who bundles in and charges for toiletries as well. And if you want bagels you are out of luck as none of the sub-contractors stock them (even though the store does). Sometimes the store won't contain the product you want, however it provides most, and it provides more products than the sum of all the sub-contractors.

 

The internet does not have borders, it is a global market, and trying to introduce geographic borders on the internet is as absurd as a supermarket store charging more for people that walk in the store based on the street they live on.

 

 

 

 

Prices in AKL are the sane for Auckland's and Hamiltonians shopping there. Anyone shopping in Hamilton or some teeny backwater will have different prices as there are different costs.

 

Internet does have a border. Series sells to NF US, but in NZ someone else bought it, as they did in Sweden and Kazakstan. But you don't want Netflix t pay the extra for those rights for you, you want to bypass it for free. Maybe you should petition to ban anyone from buys content except Netflix. But as NF makes a teeny % of net profit at the moment, expect to pay a lot more as you want NF content for free, but it costs, as at the moment, what you cannot watch on NF NZ, someone else bought it, or there is a deal with another for a near future release. But you want it now and for free.

 

 

 

But they will not have different prices when they shop in the same store - hence geoblocking is as ridiculous as having separate supermarket checkouts for people that live in different towns, suburbs or even streets. The internet does not have a border, there is literally no physical distribution involved - that is why I can buy electronic content from the US and have it available instantly at no extra cost to the content provider. Charging extra based on geography is as absurd and as arbitrary as charging extra for an Asian person to watch content and charging less for a Maori to watch content, and having special discounts for Christians. I will say it again, segmenting electronic content that can be delivered on the internet based on where you live is stupid and unethical.

And the reason why local attractions often charge tourists more is silly as well but it can somewhat be justified by the fact that locals already pay for it via rates (which is also silly). But those local attractions wouldn't be able to charge you more or less based on which side of the street you live in - which is similar to what content providers are trying to do.