| reply to sonicmerlin
Re: Dear Netflix Actual costs do not matter.
A pair of basketball shoes or a smartphone costs much less to manufacture than its retail price. What something costs a company isn't and shouldn't be the sole basis for its pricing. |
|
| reply to sandman_1
said by sandman_1:said by fifty nine 
The proof is the bandwidth charges that they and Level 3 are trying to get ISPs to eat to deliver their service.
Is 59 your IQ? Because after making a statement like that, I would think it would be so. The irony is that you don't have an actual counter argument yet you're the one calling me dumb. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to sonicmerlin
As I've pointed out many times in these threads, this kind of analysis is wrong-headed for several reasons.
1) marginal cost of bandwidth does not equal cost of providing a service.
2) Cost of providing a service is not the only factor in pricing a service.
3) Pricing of services only falls under regulation if anti-trust or managed monopoly service is in play, which it is not, therefore the public or government has no say in how services are priced or offered. You get to vote with your dollars, not with your government representatives. The implicit assumption in these "it's cheap for the ISP" analyses is exactly the opposite: that prices and terms SHOULD be regulated or legislated. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to HappyAnarchy
said by HappyAnarchy :We have invested at least as much in the major ISPs networks as they have, through taxes, easements, access to utility poles and other public property, tax breaks, etc etc etc.
Trying to pretend they did everything themselves is just a joke.
I never said they did everything themselves. But of your examples, it's my understanding that the service providers pay for easements and access to utility poles, etc, when that is granted to them. And if a government entity wants to give them some breaks, that is their decision as elected representatives of you.
And, I rather doubt that "we have invested at least as much as the major ISPs". |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:Except the ISP's aren't doing it for free. My subscription to my ISP pays for these costs as well as Netflix's bill for their connection to the internet.
I think it's quite a bit more complicated than that. The ISP gets paid by the consumer, true, but they also get paid transit fees in many cases, or they cut a peering deal at no cost to either side if they can negotiate that.
Now, things change, and a massive influx of Netflix traffic shows up. The ISP has to consider lots of stuff. Like, are my current peering/transit agreements still reasonable from a business point of view given this big change in traffic? Am I disadvantaging the video side of my business by allowing things to stay the way they are? What does the consumption curve of my Internet consumers look like, and am I being fair over time to the median user by what looks to me like subsidizing the extremely heavy user with unlimited plans?
These are all reasonable business questions and you don't have to invoke corporate greed or monopolistic behavior or conspiracy theories to explain the moves the ISPs have made.
Hey, I am a consumer, I have no stake in this game between the ISPs, Netflix, Apple/Google/Amazon (who BTW I think are REALLY the players in this game, not Netflix who is a one trick pony). I'm just observing and trying to make sense out of it, without jumping on one end of the teeter totter or the other. I think that if I actually understand what's really going on in the business, I will be able to make more informed consumer decisions. |
|
| reply to axiomatic
said by axiomatic:Nice try but the large ISP's are trying to double dip as well as protect their own video services no matter how you look at it.
im high up in a certain company and most of our meetings involve plans on making more money. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by secret :said by axiomatic:Nice try but the large ISP's are trying to double dip as well as protect their own video services no matter how you look at it.
im high up in a certain company and most of our meetings involve plans on making more money. As opposed to what? Party planning? This supposed to be some kind of amazing revelation? |
|
| reply to Wilsdom
will NEVER happen. You do realize that Comcast/NBC owns a movie studio right? All they have to do is drop the ball on NF and they lose the right to rent those movies. Talk about something that would hurt NF instantly right? Especially if people failed to return those movies?! NF telling and pressuring the last mile operators on anything is death to them.
And if it wasn't for X shareholders you wouldn't be using the Internet currently or even using a computer. |
|
| reply to sonicmerlin
blogs are NOT proof of anything. |
|
