4 ms·
What if we look at it from the other side? Here's an argument that's very similar to yours: What is the source of the notion that, because Netflix paid for ban
by fredophile 12y ago
What if we look at it from the other side? Here's an argument that's very similar to yours:
What is the source of the notion that, because Netflix paid for bandwidth, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so bizarre that both sides of the connection have to pay for it? Because you're used to your phone working differently?
As an analogy, you know how you used to pay for cable and the cable company paid money to stations they showed you? The TV station split its fee in two: the cable company paid part of it, and the advertisers paid the other part. It's the same here.
If you're going to say that one side gets to charge at both ends what makes the receiving side special? Why shouldn't the side with the content get to double dip instead?
- hga 12y agoBut it is split, or let me assure you, my AT&T ADSL connection is very much not free. TV is not apropos because in the US subscribers don't pay for it (compare to the U.K. "television license" and advertisement free BBC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un... ); cable is paid for, and there are or at least have been commercial free channels on cable. That plus a lack of censoring was part of HBO's unique selling proposition after all.
- fredophile 12y agoWhat exactly is the point of your post? So far everyone has agreed that both the company hosting the server and the consumer are paying for their connections.