4 ms·
Sorta. It's that Netflix didn't want to pay more for something someone else was getting for cheaper. If I sell hot dogs for $3, but charge you $6 because you're
by zamnos 3y ago
Sorta. It's that Netflix didn't want to pay more for something someone else was getting for cheaper. If I sell hot dogs for $3, but charge you $6 because you're you, wouldn't you raise objections?
The problem with your friend's reasoning about peering arrangements is that net neutrality is about getting what you paid for. If I go to the store and buy eggs and the farm decides it hasn't gotten enough money for the eggs, then the next time I go to the store to buy eggs, after I pay the store and get home, the farm sends someone to my house and demands an extra $3 from me (and only me). Something about that just seems off to me.
- 101011 3y agoWhat if I charge you $6 because you order so many hot dogs that I have to find another distributor of raw hot dogs and hot dog buns? And charging $3 would mean that I'm taking a loss?
- max47 3y agoThat doesn’t really apply to this debate. Netflix isn’t sending data back and forth through the ISP’s network just for their own fun and their own benefit. They send the data because the ISP’s client specifically asked for it and is paying for that bandwidth. They are also likely paying for far less bandwidth than the low bitrate Netflix is using. TV streaming is also arguably one of the main reason why the end user bought a high speed internet connection in the place.