4 ms·

The reason Comcast would rather have Netflix pay than pass those costs to consumers is because they don't want to make net neutrality any more salient for consu

The reason Comcast would rather have Netflix pay than pass those costs to consumers is because they don't want to make net neutrality any more salient for consumers. If Netflix pays Comcast then it goes mostly unnoticed by the average person. If people have to start paying then the people screaming for net neutrality will start to scream louder, and Comcast really does not want that. It's not about competition with other ISPs, because as other posters have pointed out, Comcast is usually the only ISP in many markets. Comcast worries about the FCC and Congress, not its competitors.

cdash 13y ago
Pass on the costs? Isn't this supposed to lower costs for Comcast even without getting paid by Netflix? If so you mean pass on the more profit they want.
- smutticus 13y ago
  You're right. There are no actual costs, and shame on me for adopting Comcast's language. ISPs have the option of making content providers(Netflix), or content consumers(you and me) pay more. They're choosing content providers because they don't want to make net neutrality more salient for their customers.
allochthon 13y ago
Comcast worries about the FCC and Congress, not its competitors. It would seem that worry extends only so far. In this case, if what you're saying is accurate, Comcast intends to take (i.e., extract rent), and it just doesn't want to get noticed while it takes. Fear of the FCC and potential consumer backlash do not extend so far as to help it to reconsider its basic strategy of expanding rents, even as its merger with Time Warner is under review. There's a certain boldness to Comcast's move in working out this deal with Netflix.
fpgeek 13y ago
Will that really hold up, though? Netflix isn't just going to absorb those payments, they'll have to pass them along to customers. Customers will want some explanation for why their bill is going up . And if Netflix's per-user costs become substantially different at different ISPs, they'll have to start thinking about ISP-specific surcharges...

cdash 13y ago

Pass on the costs? Isn't this supposed to lower costs for Comcast even without getting paid by Netflix? If so you mean pass on the more profit they want.

smutticus 13y ago
You're right. There are no actual costs, and shame on me for adopting Comcast's language. ISPs have the option of making content providers(Netflix), or content consumers(you and me) pay more. They're choosing content providers because they don't want to make net neutrality more salient for their customers.

allochthon 13y ago

Comcast worries about the FCC and Congress, not its competitors. It would seem that worry extends only so far. In this case, if what you're saying is accurate, Comcast intends to take (i.e., extract rent), and it just doesn't want to get noticed while it takes. Fear of the FCC and potential consumer backlash do not extend so far as to help it to reconsider its basic strategy of expanding rents, even as its merger with Time Warner is under review. There's a certain boldness to Comcast's move in working out this deal with Netflix.

fpgeek 13y ago

Will that really hold up, though? Netflix isn't just going to absorb those payments, they'll have to pass them along to customers. Customers will want some explanation for why their bill is going up . And if Netflix's per-user costs become substantially different at different ISPs, they'll have to start thinking about ISP-specific surcharges...