5 ms·

but the city can ask you to pay a tax to support its infrastructure the people who own the infrastructure can ask what ever they want including to pay to help

but the city can ask you to pay a tax to support its infrastructure the people who own the infrastructure can ask what ever they want including to pay to help support the infrastructure your business is using for free

dave4420 4y ago
I don’t think the analogy works. I am paying my ISP for internet access. Netflix is paying AWS(?) for internet access. Why should Netflix have to pay my ISP? I already paid them!
bell-cot 4y ago
"the city" means "a legal goverment". An ISP is not a government, however much they might wish to get away with pretending to be...if and only if & when that bit of pretend happens to be convenient to them. If the ISP's customer has paid for "Down_Mbps/Up_Mbps internet service", then either the ISP needs to deliver the bits, or deliver a refund. If the ISP's management can't figure out how to calculate their costs, and charge enough to turn a profit, then either the shareholders or the government need to replace them with management who can.
from 4y ago
But all the customers of Netflix are already paying for this traffic? The reason consumers are even willing to pay what they do for Internet is because of services like Netflix. Being an ISP is already a high margin business, there is no shortage of funds for investment. EU countries have had the fastest connections in the world for a while now. If you want wealth transfer from American companies that innovate to stagnating European companies you can just say so, no need to rationalize.
triceratops 4y ago
So ISPs should be nationalized?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Sounds reasonable, since they don't seem to be viable as businesses. And compensation to the current shareholders, for their evidently worthless companies, should be token at most.
- 6510 4y ago
  Shouldn't a business have the right to fail? It seems like a reasonable technical requirement. I should be allowed to screw up, go bankrupt and close shop? Or should it be that I get to keep the profits but when I make a mess tax payers should help me? It seems sensible to nationalize all critical infrastructure?
qeternity 4y ago
This is the wrong analogy. If I rent a car, and drive it to a restaurant, I might pay road tax...which is fine because I want to use the road. This is more akin to taxing the restaurant. The customer already paid, and the only reason they paid is because they wanted to go to the restaurant. Without the restaurant (or more broadly, places to go), people would have no use for the roads.
- Kukumber 4y ago
  you don't go to netflix to watch a movie at their place netflix delivers data to you are you saying the delivery man should only buy his car (AWS) and never help maintain the road (infrastructure)? why should the customer who order food has to pay for the road the delivery person will use? the customer already paid for the service! why, to you, this analogy only works when it doesn't benefit the customer? billions $ are circulating in the market, and our core infrastructures always has to suffer look at what happened in Ohio
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > netflix delivers data to you But Netflix, like everyone else, already pays for their use of the networks. This looks like double-dipping.
  - gameman144 4y ago
    Netflix already invests a huge amount into backbone infrastructure. Asking them to pay for the infrastructure which users are purportedly already paying for is plain old double-dipping. Consider a gravel road that connects your cabin to the main city road. The HOA might charge periodic maintenance fees to keep that road operable, depending on how many miles get driven on it, essentially charging you for usage. If you then order delivery from a restaurant, then yes, it's very unreasonable for the restaurant to pay for that road's upkeep: they only need to travel that road because you ordered the food. The restaurant should still pay taxes which go towards maintaining the city roads, but your privately operated HOA doesn't get to toll them to get to your house.
  - baseballdork 4y ago

dave4420 4y ago

I don’t think the analogy works. I am paying my ISP for internet access. Netflix is paying AWS(?) for internet access. Why should Netflix have to pay my ISP? I already paid them!

bell-cot 4y ago

"the city" means "a legal goverment". An ISP is not a government, however much they might wish to get away with pretending to be...if and only if & when that bit of pretend happens to be convenient to them. If the ISP's customer has paid for "Down_Mbps/Up_Mbps internet service", then either the ISP needs to deliver the bits, or deliver a refund. If the ISP's management can't figure out how to calculate their costs, and charge enough to turn a profit, then either the shareholders or the government need to replace them with management who can.

from 4y ago

But all the customers of Netflix are already paying for this traffic? The reason consumers are even willing to pay what they do for Internet is because of services like Netflix. Being an ISP is already a high margin business, there is no shortage of funds for investment. EU countries have had the fastest connections in the world for a while now. If you want wealth transfer from American companies that innovate to stagnating European companies you can just say so, no need to rationalize.

triceratops 4y ago

So ISPs should be nationalized?

bell-cot 4y ago
Sounds reasonable, since they don't seem to be viable as businesses. And compensation to the current shareholders, for their evidently worthless companies, should be token at most.
6510 4y ago
Shouldn't a business have the right to fail? It seems like a reasonable technical requirement. I should be allowed to screw up, go bankrupt and close shop? Or should it be that I get to keep the profits but when I make a mess tax payers should help me? It seems sensible to nationalize all critical infrastructure?

qeternity 4y ago

This is the wrong analogy. If I rent a car, and drive it to a restaurant, I might pay road tax...which is fine because I want to use the road. This is more akin to taxing the restaurant. The customer already paid, and the only reason they paid is because they wanted to go to the restaurant. Without the restaurant (or more broadly, places to go), people would have no use for the roads.

Kukumber 4y ago
you don't go to netflix to watch a movie at their place netflix delivers data to you are you saying the delivery man should only buy his car (AWS) and never help maintain the road (infrastructure)? why should the customer who order food has to pay for the road the delivery person will use? the customer already paid for the service! why, to you, this analogy only works when it doesn't benefit the customer? billions $ are circulating in the market, and our core infrastructures always has to suffer look at what happened in Ohio
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > netflix delivers data to you But Netflix, like everyone else, already pays for their use of the networks. This looks like double-dipping.
- gameman144 4y ago
  Netflix already invests a huge amount into backbone infrastructure. Asking them to pay for the infrastructure which users are purportedly already paying for is plain old double-dipping. Consider a gravel road that connects your cabin to the main city road. The HOA might charge periodic maintenance fees to keep that road operable, depending on how many miles get driven on it, essentially charging you for usage. If you then order delivery from a restaurant, then yes, it's very unreasonable for the restaurant to pay for that road's upkeep: they only need to travel that road because you ordered the food. The restaurant should still pay taxes which go towards maintaining the city roads, but your privately operated HOA doesn't get to toll them to get to your house.
- baseballdork 4y ago