3 ms·

They're not being paid already because the explosion of streaming video traffic is a relatively new and ongoing process. They expect to be paid more for moving

They're not being paid already because the explosion of streaming video traffic is a relatively new and ongoing process. They expect to be paid more for moving more bits. Now, you might expect the capacity of the network to simply increase as a matter of technological progress. But it's not that crazy of a notion to charge more for doing more. They could make their own customers pay but they're trying to shift it to Netflix, and indirectly to Netflix users. There's nothing fundamentally unfair about it. The answer that they shouldn't charge anyone more amounts to financing the expansion by their investors (in the form of lower returns). It's not a political problem, it's an economic one. All of those companies are after money, whether in additional fees or lower costs.

Karunamon 12y ago
The fair and forthright thing to do, if that's really the case, is to charge me more. I am their customer, Netflix is not. Comcast's job is to deliver what content I ask for. Except, they won't do that, because an ISP who will play in good faith will come along and eat their lunch, and their plans are already absurdly expensive. It's not as if Netflix is blasting unsolicited traffic into Comcast's network that they should somehow compensate them for the inconvenience. "Oh, So sorry! That neighborhood scamp Netflix, blasting their packets all over the place". The fact that it's Netflix is utterly irrelevant in truth. In the end, Comcast's customers are the ones requesting the data. It's just the simple fact that it's all coming from one source starts the wheels turning, where if it was more spread out, they couldn't come after any one person in particular to seek rent. >Now, you might expect the capacity of the network to simply increase as a matter of technological progress. As it has been for the past couple of decades? Yes, that is exactly what I expect. I'm not saying they shouldn't charge more. I'm saying they shouldn't piss on the internet's leg and tell them it's raining. Don't come to us with that 'But but but capacity!' argument when their behavior with Netflix clearly indicates the opposite, and less so when you're a monopolist with the second worst customer satisfaction score in the entire country, and even more less so when it's their damn problem in the first place! On top of that, streaming video is a time-sensitive medium and others are not. The sane thing to do (again, assuming this is really a capacity issue, which I absolutely believe is 100% grade A horse manure) would be to throttle down the other, non-time-sensitive packets like torrent, http, mail traffic. Basic QoS. If you believe this company's stated reasons for anything, you are being played for a fool. They can not be trusted.

Karunamon 12y ago

The fair and forthright thing to do, if that's really the case, is to charge me more. I am their customer, Netflix is not. Comcast's job is to deliver what content I ask for. Except, they won't do that, because an ISP who will play in good faith will come along and eat their lunch, and their plans are already absurdly expensive. It's not as if Netflix is blasting unsolicited traffic into Comcast's network that they should somehow compensate them for the inconvenience. "Oh, So sorry! That neighborhood scamp Netflix, blasting their packets all over the place". The fact that it's Netflix is utterly irrelevant in truth. In the end, Comcast's customers are the ones requesting the data. It's just the simple fact that it's all coming from one source starts the wheels turning, where if it was more spread out, they couldn't come after any one person in particular to seek rent. >Now, you might expect the capacity of the network to simply increase as a matter of technological progress. As it has been for the past couple of decades? Yes, that is exactly what I expect. I'm not saying they shouldn't charge more. I'm saying they shouldn't piss on the internet's leg and tell them it's raining. Don't come to us with that 'But but but capacity!' argument when their behavior with Netflix clearly indicates the opposite, and less so when you're a monopolist with the second worst customer satisfaction score in the entire country, and even more less so when it's their damn problem in the first place! On top of that, streaming video is a time-sensitive medium and others are not. The sane thing to do (again, assuming this is really a capacity issue, which I absolutely believe is 100% grade A horse manure) would be to throttle down the other, non-time-sensitive packets like torrent, http, mail traffic. Basic QoS. If you believe this company's stated reasons for anything, you are being played for a fool. They can not be trusted.