3 ms·
The bandwidth argument doesn't fly. I already pay for my bandwidth. You already pay for yours. I don't pay for yours and you don't pay for mine. Why do we have
by globular-toast 3y ago
The bandwidth argument doesn't fly. I already pay for my bandwidth. You already pay for yours. I don't pay for yours and you don't pay for mine. Why do we have to pay for YouTube's? If YouTube is finding their bandwidth costs are too high then they should renegotiate their deals and peering agreements etc. They almost certainly already get a much better deal on bandwidth than you or me.
This way bandwidth costs would be paid for by the people actually using it, ie. the users.
Running the service as a loss and expecting to recoup it via advertising is a broken business model. Loss leaders always lead to consumer dissatisfaction. People should just pay for what they use.
I do not believe in "unlimited bandwidth" ISP deals. Nothing is unlimited. I want to pay for what I use. This is not entitlement.
It's not my fault they've chosen a broken business model. If I could get the content elsewhere I certainly would. They've used anti-competitive practices to ensure YouTube is the most popular platform for new media. I will not have ads in my own home and I will not pay into one specific monopoly. That's not how the web works.
- abenga 3y agoYou are entitled to try to block ads (and I do, myself). They are entitled to try to not serve you content if you do so without paying. To the winner goes the spoils, I guess.
- globular-toast 3y agoSure, but that also doesn't fit their business model. They wouldn't retain their monopoly if it wasn't free at the point of use. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. I'm more than happy to pay for bandwidth, storage, electricity etc. and I do. It's up to them to make this work for them, not me. A peer-to-peer model would solve a lot of their cost problems.