|
to elray
Re: StillLet me understand this: Are you saying that it would be nice for Netflix to pay ISPs to send their content with no effect on your monthly cap, or are you saying that it would be nice for ISPs to not impose a monthly cap on their users? I ask as these are two different things, and the first is in support of the multi-tiered internet which is the very thing those of us in favor of network neutrality are trying to avoid. |
|
TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA
1 recommendation |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2014-Jan-24 12:11 pm
I've got to agree. That would be a horrible situation.
From the content provider viewpoint: It would favor big companies over small ones. A small Netflix-competitor startup wouldn't have the cash to pay to all of the ISPs to let their content be cap-free. This would mean that large companies would become entrenched without fear of smaller competition.
From the user viewpoint: It would be fuzzy just what counted and didn't count towards your caps. Netflix doesn't, but does YouTube? What about Amazon VOD? Vidmeo? Hulu? iTunes? What if you switch providers (being lucky enough to live in an area with more than one ISP)? Does the new ISP have a different set of "cap free" services than the old one?
This type of system would just result in large companies pushing out small startups and customers getting overcharged due to cap confusion. |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA
1 recommendation |
to PapaMidnight
Yes, it would be better if Netflix paid, on behalf of its customers, to assure delivery of their streams, without meter anxiety, rather than having the ISP customer suffer performance issues or worry about their cap.
Netflix has the power to negotiate really great terms for priority delivery - the consumer does not.
The 30% of us who don't use any volume at all, who don't care for Netflix or equivalent, shouldn't be paying for the extra capital costs to support the new demand rate, or the ISP's cost to link up with OpenConnect.
Wired caps are a temporary phenomenon, which will be raised and eventually fade away in the next decade, but they'll be replaced by something else for Karl to complain about, i.e. IPV6-based per-device (or basket) charges, or SIM-card / Cablecard-IV authentication and charge for every connection.
Wireless caps will be with us for a very long time, so cap buy-outs (or co-pays) will be critical for video streaming products to succeed. |
|
jjeffeoryjjeffeory join:2002-12-04 Bloomington, IN |
to PapaMidnight
He's for data caps and pretty much anti-consumer/pro ISP. Which is strange, because they shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive. |
|
jjeffeory |
to elray
Maybe you 3% should just get a special "grandma" tier that's super cheap and so the rest of us can be out of your hair and actually use the internet. |
|
QumahlinNever Enough Time MVM join:2001-10-05 united state |
to elray
It's odd you would think wireless caps will be with us for a long time, when as time moves forward there is less and less of a need for them, whereas you think wired caps will eventually fade away. It would make more sense for you to think both will fade away.
Regardless, no streaming provider is going to pay for your wireless overage caps, nor should they. Video streaming products will still succeed and either the providers will change or the consumer will shell out more money. Either way you thinking the streaming provider is going to pay is simply not going to happen. Ever. |
|
(Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition Ruckus R310
1 recommendation |
to jjeffeory
Doesn't everyone understand that IF Netflix were to pay the ransom to be held outside the cap that the cost would go right into a price hike? Also, Netflix is paying for bandwidth... on their end and customers on this end... The ONLY place to lay blame is with the ISP... |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
to elray
If wired caps disappear, what would motivate streaming providers to buy-out caps on the wireless side? Carrier wireless (as opposed to WiFi) is useful for many things but unless I'm camping or stranded, anywhere I find enough comfort to enjoy a Netflix movie, WiFi is available and I don't need to use my carrier wireless. Planes are an exception but that use case is evolving in its own direction. |
|
chamberc Premium Member join:2008-08-05 Addison, TX
3 recommendations |
to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:Let me understand this: Are you saying that it would be nice for Netflix to pay ISPs to send their content with no effect on your monthly cap, or are you saying that it would be nice for ISPs to not impose a monthly cap on their users? I ask as these are two different things, and the first is in support of the multi-tiered internet which is the very thing those of us in favor of network neutrality are trying to avoid. Hopefully everyone is on board with content providers paying for what they use... why should everyone foot the bill equally for small providers who consume a lot of bandwidth. Net neutrality is simple socialism. |
|
2 recommendations |
said by chamberc:said by PapaMidnight:Let me understand this: Are you saying that it would be nice for Netflix to pay ISPs to send their content with no effect on your monthly cap, or are you saying that it would be nice for ISPs to not impose a monthly cap on their users? I ask as these are two different things, and the first is in support of the multi-tiered internet which is the very thing those of us in favor of network neutrality are trying to avoid. Hopefully everyone is on board with content providers paying for what they use... why should everyone foot the bill equally for small providers who consume a lot of bandwidth. Net neutrality is simple socialism. Go away troll. |
|
|
to buzz_4_20
How doe Netflix pay on the customer's end? Netflix doesn't pay part of anyone's bill. They pay for their own CDN charges and that is all. As far as the blame with the ISPs- again Netflix sets the standards to peer with them, it's not the ISPs fault that Netlix only requires a 10gig-e link. If Netflix wants more- they should pay more to peer. It's just another Cogent issue just this time with a CDN. |
|
TBBroadband |
to Qumahlin
Google is a streaming provider and indeed does pay. |
|
TBBroadband |
to chamberc
And is a form of socialism that does NOT need to be created. It is something that is not a right. |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to jjeffeory
Thanks. We do have that tier ($15/month, 2M/1M), and I'm the first to stipulate that remarkably, they're able to offer it without the cap they proposed a couple years ago.
But don't flatter yourself. The low-volume users are about 30%, not 3%, and that doesn't count the non-subscribers who simply aren't interested or are unwilling to pay the market rate for service.
It is actually you who needs to get out of the way, and not overconsume common resources, so the rest of us, who don't, can access when we so choose. |
|
elray |
to Qumahlin
There is a fundamental difference in capacity potential between wired and wireless. The former approaches infinity, the latter has real limits.
You watch.
As AT&T and Verizon offer up toll-free wireless video options, you will see ESPN, NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL and Nascar step up.
What you may misunderstand, is that they're not paying your "steep" overages, they're buying them out in bulk, for their traffic to you, for a penny on the dollar, in exchange for your patronage.
Netflix will fight for a while, but eventually, they'll make a deal as well. |
|
|
to elray
The cap on that particular tier known as internet essentials was merely optional to save $5 but would limit the use to 5GB which to me is not worth the savings. |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2014-Jan-25 5:51 pm
Actually, the first offering was for a $15 tier, not the $5 savings, but Karl and his merry band of populists shouted it down before we could even buy it.
The current offering ("Everyday Low Price Internet") is $15 without a cap. |
|
r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX
3 recommendations |
to chamberc
You cant be this stupid? Net neutrality ensures the internet stays fair and people dont get double charged for the networks they already 100% paid for. Every customers including you, me, netflix, cnn, fox news, hulu, dslreports, etc pays their ISP for internet access. It makes no sense to allow monopolies to gouge customers to double charge. That is not socialism. Net neutraity is fair capitalism where everyone only has to pay once to get on the internet.
Now socialism started the internet and corporate welfare gave companies like ATT and Comcast free money to build their networks. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Personal attacks hidden : Trolling
|