4 ms·

Absolutely. No one is entitled to free content, what's wrong with paying for Netflix/YouTube?

by czardoz 8y ago

icebraining 8y ago
Netflix is already paid.. fyfy18 is talking about paying your ISP for the privilege of accessing Netflix.
- greggyb 8y ago
  I paid for my car. I still have to pay for gas on a regular basis. I still have to pay tolls on many roads and highways. I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. And that damn greedy electric company chose to charge me more for listening to it when I wanted to. Sure, I could have played my music from midnight to 6am, to take advantage of my evil utility's lower rates at night, but I chose to listen during the day. That utility was really evil, too. I wanted to install an electrically powered utility in my old house. It was a dryer. But they made me go out and find some third party to "prepare my electrical network" for the product I had already purchased. I had to find an electrician to come and install a 240V circuit in my house. I already pay for electricity, but they couldn't even be arsed to come fix my wiring for me. Don't get me wrong. I love net neutrality. But I don't think my preferences should be enforced upon the entire population. I also hate fishing. I don't care for tripe. But I also don't try to enforce that preference on others. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. (...) Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. A better analogy would be: I paid for a stereo, but now I have to pay for listening to it because it's a Sony, whereas I wouldn't if it was a Philips. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't. Also irrelevant, Net Neutrality doesn't in any way prevent ISPs from charging for the bandwidth you consume. If they don't, it's their decision. It only prevents them from charging more depending on where the bits go.
    - greggyb 8y ago
      > Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. What did I pay my ISP for? I can pay for cable television. I can pay extra for HBO, or not. I can only get NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV. Where is the outrage? Why is the coax that comes into my house and hooked up to my cable box less deserving of outrage than the coax that comes into my house and connects to my modem?
      - icebraining 8y ago
        I can pay extra for HBO Exactly! You pay for HBO, like you already pay for Netflix. You don't pay a surcharge to be allowed to pay for HBO.
        greggyb 8y ago
        I can pay Comcast $30 for "basic cable". This brings every piece of equipment and signal into my home necessary to watch any programming that Comcast has to offer. There are no technical limitations, but there is some flag in Comcast's system that indicates I am only allowed to watch the channels included in basic cable. If I want, I can call them up and add the HBO package. With no technical improvement, simply an update to my customer record, I can near-instantly see this content. I cannot purchase cable HBO without paying for basic cable. I have to pay my cable provider a premium for the privilege of paying them for HBO. I could, of course make a contract directly with HBO and stream, though that is theNetflix scenario. I have a dumb wire coming into my house. Depending on the deal I make with my cable provider, I can have different content available by using that wire. My internet is a dumb wire coming into my house. I can make a deal with my ISP to have certain things possible on that wire. I have a customer record. They block certain ports. E.g. I cannot run an email server using my connection. If I purchase a business package, they will update my customer record to indicate such and I get a static IP and can now send email. They are allowed to do this. Both of the above are about dealing with a single entity. So all of these prices are bundled into one payment to one entity. I can purchase or lease content. One way to do this is Netflix. Another would be to purchase media, e.g. a Blu-ray disc. They are mere providers of content. If I want to consume the content I need to purchase a compatible platform. If I lease content from Netflix I need basically any computer and an internet connection. If I purchase a Blu-ray, I need to buy a player of some sort. When I purchase my Blu-ray player, there are license fees baked in there to various patent-holders for the privilege of decoding that disc. It's all bundled up into one price, though, for fees and hardware. The purchase of a Blu-ray player is a completely different transaction with a completely different entity than the creator of the disc. The hardware manufacturer is under no obligation to sell me a player, but they do. They are also under no obligation to make their hardware support multiple formats. Despite this it was very easy to find a VHS-DVD player for a while there. I don't think anyone offers Blu-ray and laserdisc. When I lease my internet connection, that is a different transaction with my ISP, a different entity than the content provider (Netflix). The ISP is under no obligation to offer me a contract to serve all content equally to me, though that has been a common contract for a long time. Among the actors A, B, and C, there is no obligation on C when A and B make an agreement. There is no obligation and should be none on my ISP when I make a deal with Netflix. Similarly there is no obligation between Netflix and me when I make a deal with the ISP. And similarly with the purchased content and the hardware manufacturer. If my ISP (who, as a matter of fact IS my cable provider) charges me like my cable provider, that does not seem terribly unreasonable from a business relationship perspective. All that said, another element of argumentation is that different content providers may subsidize their content. This is, of course, already the case. Netflix gives ISPs streaming boxes for free to optimize delivery of content. A subsidy doesn't have to give cash. I'm sure Google has similar boxes for Youtube content. Now, what of the nightmare scenario? This is where one content provider pays an ISP to not host anyone else's content. Netflix pays Comcast to not support Youtube. This is different than Netflix paying Comcast on behalf of its customers (it already does in the form of its streaming boxes, which reduce load on Comcast's network - that is very much a direct subsidy). Netflix shouldering a cost on behalf of its customers is just a transfer, we would pay for that in the Netflix subscription (and we do! We pay Netflix. Netflix sends boxes to ISP for "free"? No we pay for those streaming boxes which by definition are a subsidy to Comcast). That's fine. Netflix paying Comcast to block a competitor's content? That's different. And if we need to deal with it, we can. Anticompetitive behavior is already something that we have legislation in place to prevent. And we can use that infrastructure in the case that one actor in the market is distorting it. As we did when Intel made exclusive deals with OEMs to block AMD out of deals. As we did when Microsoft bundled IE for free. As has happened in many other cases. Now, all that said, I like net neutrality. Actually, I freaking love it. I want it very badly. It is a good thing for me. I benefit from it. But me wanting something is an insufficient threshold for me to support it as a policy. I would love to pay no taxes for instance. I would be better off if most people were not allowed to drive (so long as I get to be one of the lucky few). I would be better off if a lot of things happened, and vanishingly few of those things are good policy. Now, before the strawman cometh, my argument is this: "I want" or "I receive a specific benefit" is a poor justification on its own for a policy. Similarly "Two of us want" or "two of us receive a specific benefit" is a bad justification. This holds for very large N (certainly more than half of the population - see the case of 51% enslaving 49%). I am not saying that net neutrality is the same as me paying no taxes, or the other items I mentioned. My argument is this: Agreements between party A and party B should not be expected to impose arbitrary obligations on party C. Net neutrality says exactly that: "Because I paid Netflix for a service, Comcast is required to enter into a contract with me to deliver that network traffic to my home" I would be mighty miffed if Comcast forbade me from watching Netflix. Still doesn't mean that I have the right to impose that obligation upon them.

Absolutely. No one is entitled to free content, what's wrong with paying for Netflix/YouTube?

icebraining 8y ago

Netflix is already paid.. fyfy18 is talking about paying your ISP for the privilege of accessing Netflix.

greggyb 8y ago
I paid for my car. I still have to pay for gas on a regular basis. I still have to pay tolls on many roads and highways. I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. And that damn greedy electric company chose to charge me more for listening to it when I wanted to. Sure, I could have played my music from midnight to 6am, to take advantage of my evil utility's lower rates at night, but I chose to listen during the day. That utility was really evil, too. I wanted to install an electrically powered utility in my old house. It was a dryer. But they made me go out and find some third party to "prepare my electrical network" for the product I had already purchased. I had to find an electrician to come and install a 240V circuit in my house. I already pay for electricity, but they couldn't even be arsed to come fix my wiring for me. Don't get me wrong. I love net neutrality. But I don't think my preferences should be enforced upon the entire population. I also hate fishing. I don't care for tripe. But I also don't try to enforce that preference on others. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't.
- icebraining 8y ago
  I paid for a CD once, a long time ago. I still had to pay for electricity for the stereo. (...) Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. A better analogy would be: I paid for a stereo, but now I have to pay for listening to it because it's a Sony, whereas I wouldn't if it was a Philips. My mother barely uses the internet at her home, but she pays the same price I do. I am a very high bandwidth user. I definitely free-ride on the average user who consumes less bandwidth. It's not fair. I should pay more. But I don't. Also irrelevant, Net Neutrality doesn't in any way prevent ISPs from charging for the bandwidth you consume. If they don't, it's their decision. It only prevents them from charging more depending on where the bits go.
  - greggyb 8y ago
    > Irrelevant, you already pay Netflix and your ISP. What did I pay my ISP for? I can pay for cable television. I can pay extra for HBO, or not. I can only get NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV. Where is the outrage? Why is the coax that comes into my house and hooked up to my cable box less deserving of outrage than the coax that comes into my house and connects to my modem?
    - icebraining 8y ago
      I can pay extra for HBO Exactly! You pay for HBO, like you already pay for Netflix. You don't pay a surcharge to be allowed to pay for HBO.
      - greggyb 8y ago
        I can pay Comcast $30 for "basic cable". This brings every piece of equipment and signal into my home necessary to watch any programming that Comcast has to offer. There are no technical limitations, but there is some flag in Comcast's system that indicates I am only allowed to watch the channels included in basic cable. If I want, I can call them up and add the HBO package. With no technical improvement, simply an update to my customer record, I can near-instantly see this content. I cannot purchase cable HBO without paying for basic cable. I have to pay my cable provider a premium for the privilege of paying them for HBO. I could, of course make a contract directly with HBO and stream, though that is theNetflix scenario. I have a dumb wire coming into my house. Depending on the deal I make with my cable provider, I can have different content available by using that wire. My internet is a dumb wire coming into my house. I can make a deal with my ISP to have certain things possible on that wire. I have a customer record. They block certain ports. E.g. I cannot run an email server using my connection. If I purchase a business package, they will update my customer record to indicate such and I get a static IP and can now send email. They are allowed to do this. Both of the above are about dealing with a single entity. So all of these prices are bundled into one payment to one entity. I can purchase or lease content. One way to do this is Netflix. Another would be to purchase media, e.g. a Blu-ray disc. They are mere providers of content. If I want to consume the content I need to purchase a compatible platform. If I lease content from Netflix I need basically any computer and an internet connection. If I purchase a Blu-ray, I need to buy a player of some sort. When I purchase my Blu-ray player, there are license fees baked in there to various patent-holders for the privilege of decoding that disc. It's all bundled up into one price, though, for fees and hardware. The purchase of a Blu-ray player is a completely different transaction with a completely different entity than the creator of the disc. The hardware manufacturer is under no obligation to sell me a player, but they do. They are also under no obligation to make their hardware support multiple formats. Despite this it was very easy to find a VHS-DVD player for a while there. I don't think anyone offers Blu-ray and laserdisc. When I lease my internet connection, that is a different transaction with my ISP, a different entity than the content provider (Netflix). The ISP is under no obligation to offer me a contract to serve all content equally to me, though that has been a common contract for a long time. Among the actors A, B, and C, there is no obligation on C when A and B make an agreement. There is no obligation and should be none on my ISP when I make a deal with Netflix. Similarly there is no obligation between Netflix and me when I make a deal with the ISP. And similarly with the purchased content and the hardware manufacturer. If my ISP (who, as a matter of fact IS my cable provider) charges me like my cable provider, that does not seem terribly unreasonable from a business relationship perspective. All that said, another element of argumentation is that different content providers may subsidize their content. This is, of course, already the case. Netflix gives ISPs streaming boxes for free to optimize delivery of content. A subsidy doesn't have to give cash. I'm sure Google has similar boxes for Youtube content. Now, what of the nightmare scenario? This is where one content provider pays an ISP to not host anyone else's content. Netflix pays Comcast to not support Youtube. This is different than Netflix paying Comcast on behalf of its customers (it already does in the form of its streaming boxes, which reduce load on Comcast's network - that is very much a direct subsidy). Netflix shouldering a cost on behalf of its customers is just a transfer, we would pay for that in the Netflix subscription (and we do! We pay Netflix. Netflix sends boxes to ISP for "free"? No we pay for those streaming boxes which by definition are a subsidy to Comcast). That's fine. Netflix paying Comcast to block a competitor's content? That's different. And if we need to deal with it, we can. Anticompetitive behavior is already something that we have legislation in place to prevent. And we can use that infrastructure in the case that one actor in the market is distorting it. As we did when Intel made exclusive deals with OEMs to block AMD out of deals. As we did when Microsoft bundled IE for free. As has happened in many other cases. Now, all that said, I like net neutrality. Actually, I freaking love it. I want it very badly. It is a good thing for me. I benefit from it. But me wanting something is an insufficient threshold for me to support it as a policy. I would love to pay no taxes for instance. I would be better off if most people were not allowed to drive (so long as I get to be one of the lucky few). I would be better off if a lot of things happened, and vanishingly few of those things are good policy. Now, before the strawman cometh, my argument is this: "I want" or "I receive a specific benefit" is a poor justification on its own for a policy. Similarly "Two of us want" or "two of us receive a specific benefit" is a bad justification. This holds for very large N (certainly more than half of the population - see the case of 51% enslaving 49%). I am not saying that net neutrality is the same as me paying no taxes, or the other items I mentioned. My argument is this: Agreements between party A and party B should not be expected to impose arbitrary obligations on party C. Net neutrality says exactly that: "Because I paid Netflix for a service, Comcast is required to enter into a contract with me to deliver that network traffic to my home" I would be mighty miffed if Comcast forbade me from watching Netflix. Still doesn't mean that I have the right to impose that obligation upon them.