3 ms·

Thanks for this detailed answer! I was thinking more about production costs, of course it makes sense to sell the content based on number of viewers. I'm not v

by rtpg 10y ago

Thanks for this detailed answer! I was thinking more about production costs, of course it makes sense to sell the content based on number of viewers. I'm not very aware of who pays what though. In an alternative universe cable would work like the internet: content carriers. Netflix is basically the most popular thing (normalized for traffic) and even they are basically paying ISPs to help get served better.

seanp2k2 10y ago
Not basically, but literally: https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/ https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t... Comcast is charging to put data into their tube, and charging for access to the tube. They get paid on both ends. They can do this because they have no competition in most markets and there is little will in Washington to make this situation better for Americans. Edit: also, get ready for Ajit Pai's FCC where Comcast, Verizon, ATT, TimeWarner, etc will be allowed to "zero rate" "select" services (read: when services pay their ransom). Data caps and speeds for the "regular" internet will go down without this, and first-party offerings from the ISPs will of course be exempt from the caps. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/11/att-time-warner-deal-shows-time-stop-zero-rating/amp/?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/11/att-time-... it's already happening. ISPs refuse to be dumb pipes and want to open additional revenue channels by figuring out creative new ways to charge everyone for moving bits across their network. They will continue unchecked and without meaningful competition.
- rtpg 10y ago
  I've read up on this, and have always felt like the nuance is important. Netflix _could_ just rely on the standard infrastructure like everyone else, but doesn't want to because it would provide sub-standard quality. So they also have their own "ISP" that hooks into Comcast and co. This is less like Comcast + a website, and more like Comcast + another ISP. The dynamics are different.
- massysett 10y ago
  Because being an undifferentiated dumb pipe pushes prices down to marginal cost, which is not sustainable from a business standpoint--which would leave us with no one but the government to invest in the infrastructure. I don't know about you but I don't want Trump, Ajit Pai, and Elizabeth Warren deciding how to allocate capital for network infrastructure. Being undifferentiated, dumb operators of flying tubes left US airlines in a precarious state. As wireless grows increasingly competitive with wireline services, the telecoms will find themselves in the exact same place.

by rtpg 10y ago

seanp2k2 10y ago

Not basically, but literally: https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/ https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t... Comcast is charging to put data into their tube, and charging for access to the tube. They get paid on both ends. They can do this because they have no competition in most markets and there is little will in Washington to make this situation better for Americans. Edit: also, get ready for Ajit Pai's FCC where Comcast, Verizon, ATT, TimeWarner, etc will be allowed to "zero rate" "select" services (read: when services pay their ransom). Data caps and speeds for the "regular" internet will go down without this, and first-party offerings from the ISPs will of course be exempt from the caps. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/11/att-time-warner-deal-shows-time-stop-zero-rating/amp/?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/11/att-time-... it's already happening. ISPs refuse to be dumb pipes and want to open additional revenue channels by figuring out creative new ways to charge everyone for moving bits across their network. They will continue unchecked and without meaningful competition.

rtpg 10y ago
I've read up on this, and have always felt like the nuance is important. Netflix _could_ just rely on the standard infrastructure like everyone else, but doesn't want to because it would provide sub-standard quality. So they also have their own "ISP" that hooks into Comcast and co. This is less like Comcast + a website, and more like Comcast + another ISP. The dynamics are different.
massysett 10y ago
Because being an undifferentiated dumb pipe pushes prices down to marginal cost, which is not sustainable from a business standpoint--which would leave us with no one but the government to invest in the infrastructure. I don't know about you but I don't want Trump, Ajit Pai, and Elizabeth Warren deciding how to allocate capital for network infrastructure. Being undifferentiated, dumb operators of flying tubes left US airlines in a precarious state. As wireless grows increasingly competitive with wireline services, the telecoms will find themselves in the exact same place.