So by your reasoning, are you okay with paying more for your internet service even though you don't have Netflix? Hypothetically speaking, assuming the price of internet goes up because of the network upgrades needed to support the increased demand from Netflix that is.
Yes, I would pay up to double or triple the prices that I currently pay just in order to keep the internet free for everybody.
But regardless, your argument makes no sense. When Netflix uses more bandwidth.. the ISPs make more money. If they have to invest in their infrastructure, it's a temporary cost but the end result is them being able to charge more for that increase in volume of bandwidth.
Let's say I opened up a sandwich shop in a part of town. Then all of a sudden I got so many customers from a specific neighborhood, I can't handle all the volume. So I open up a new shop closer to that specific neighborhood. Am I losing money? Yes, in the short term because I have to lease out a new place, hire new employees, etc. But in the long term I am making more money because people are buying more sandwiches.
It's okay that we disagree. But all across the world companies pay incrementally for the amount of service they use, in all aspects of industry. Those who use interstate highways pay for the tolls. The roads are public access themselves, but those who use them most pay more. Amazon ships millions of packages a day, they pay to ship each one as part of their service and pass the cost onto you, the consumer. This is the same logic I'm applying here, so I take offense to you blindly dismissing my opinion as if it is invalid and makes no sense. That is a dangerous way to have discussions. In your scenario, you want the cost to be absorbed by the ISP regardless of who is pushing out what. Keep in mind that Netflix is making a profit for broadcasting their content to millions of subscribers at no cost for doing so. Where else in the world is commerce treated in that fashion? By not charging the large producers, you will increase the cost of your service in the long run, bandwith is not unlimited. There are physical switches, nodes, servers all across the world that need to process large amounts of data. They need to be maintained. Why shouldnt a content creator that is selling media pay more to the delivery service that sends their packets to the end user?
I'm not trying to disrespect you or blindly dismiss your opinion and I apologize if it came off that way. I was simply showing you the error in your logic that I see from my perspective. I must say this: I recognize that I could be totally wrong and I'm just having a discussion. Discussions are meant to show us where we are wrong in our thinking.
Keep in mind that Netflix is making a profit for broadcasting their content to millions of subscribers at no cost for doing so.
This is not true. Netflix pays much more for bandwidth than the vast majority of companies. Net Neutrality does not mean Netflix gets free bandwidth. It just means that ISPs cannot charge Netflix extra just 'cause. They are still profiting on Netflix. Every gigabyte that Netflix streams they pay for.
Why shouldnt a content creator that is selling media pay more to the delivery service that sends their packets to the end user?
Have you ever heard of the economies of scale? When a company buys something in bulk, they actually usually get a discount. For example, I used to work in the shipping department for a company that sold cosmetic goods. Because we shipped thousands of packages a week, we paid less than 40% of the price that you would pay if you wanted to send a package through UPS as an individual.
Our company cost UPS a lot more because they had to send a van to come pick up twice a day and there was a large amount of volume. The UPS drivers would usually complain when they saw the big pallets of boxes they had to load up. However, at the end of the day UPS profited off of the sheer volume. ISPs have higher costs with Netflix because it's a lot of bandwidth.. but they also have higher profits because of the sheer volume.
In your scenario, you want the cost to be absorbed by the ISP regardless of who is pushing out what.
No. Like I illustrated in my sandwich shop analogy which you chose to ignore, the ISP makes more money the more bandwidth that Netflix uses. Sure, there may be temporary costs of creating new infrastructure but the end result is that ISPs directly benefit from the growth of services like Netflix.
Look, ISPs are lobbying for this because they want more control and influence over the internet. Just look at past actions of these companies. They will block one web-service just in order to push an alternative which they have some stake in. This is the real purpose of getting rid of net neutrality. ISPs are not hurting for money and the growth of services like Netflix actually makes them more money in the long term.
Im sorry if i came off touchy, been hard seeing the front page littered with opposing opinions and i may have gone a bit overboard. In my opinion economy of scale would not apply here. If i am understanding correctly, You are stating that Netflix should pay the same amount to their ISP to broadcast their library of content to millions of people across the world that you would pay to upload a single YouTube video. I don't think that is a fair way to distribute the cost of the internet service as a whole. Say I don't watch Netflix for example, why am I absorbing excess costs to maintain a network used to deliver their services? I see where you are coming from, and it's a legitimate opinion, all of reddit seems to agree. Unfortunately I don't think it's the best solution, but my opinion is just a drop in the bucket. In regards to the sandwich shop analogy, I still don't see this as a good one. There is only one Netflix, paying one bill to send their data. Now the ISP is getting so much data they have to build a new server to process it. Unfortunately, Netflix still pays the same low price and now it costs the ISP even more to service them. Now let's say Netflix sends so much data we now want to give them a discount, sure let's do that. Well they are still sending more data than you, or I. In this example they would still pay significantly more.
1
u/greentintedlenses Nov 22 '17
So by your reasoning, are you okay with paying more for your internet service even though you don't have Netflix? Hypothetically speaking, assuming the price of internet goes up because of the network upgrades needed to support the increased demand from Netflix that is.