3 ms·

> is it really fair to treat them like every other company? Interesting question. I guess from my perspective I buy broadband from AT&T and they tell me under

> is it really fair to treat them like every other company? Interesting question. I guess from my perspective I buy broadband from AT&T and they tell me under no uncertain terms that I have a cap at x amount of gigabytes. As a customer I expect to use all of that. >Guilt tripping Verizon into adding more routers is a major net positive to Netflix's business. As a customer it shocks me they aren't doing so. Yesterday it was Netflix, today its every kid with an Xbox1 or PS4 buying games digitally as buying physical media is out of style. What's a typical game nowadays? 20gb? That's the equivalant of many netflix movies right there, all at once. What does tomorrow hold? Why aren't they prepared for this?

josh2600 12y ago
I'll reiterate the problem carriers face that I stated earlier. Customer revenue is decreasing and because the market is saturated they cannot add enough customers to combat the atrophy of revenue. As shareholders expect growth every year, ISPs are forced to look for new revenue streams. If you don't think they should be doing this as a private company, reclassify them as a utility. Otherwise shareholder demand is what gets satisfied. Carriers have very specific equipment amortization patterns in their heads and they are financial models that banks accept. If carriers have to change their amortization patterns (more routers, faster) they have to change their financing which damages the value of the stock. Sure we can do this, but what does "fair" mean here? I'm trying to say that the argument is not as black and white as people make it out to be.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >If carriers have to change their amortization patterns (more routers, faster) they have to change their financing which damages the value of the stock. Welcome to the world of business. Change is constant, you can't just tell your customers, "Whoops we didn't plan for that." I also disagree that its as hopeless as you make it out to be (in many nations 100mbps or even 1gbps unlimited internet is trivial to get). They can raise prices on customers, lower caps, throttle netflix users, etc if they're in such financial dire straits. Their competitors will love this as customers will migrate to them. Their competitors may have a more nimble management structure and can provide the data at this level. What I don't get, assuming they really are in dire straits and not trying to monetize artificial scarcity, is why don't they just push out a notice, "Due to network limitations, we are throttling streaming video users to 4mbps which is enough for medium quality 720p streaming. The investment to support 1080p streaming is impossible for us. Love Verizon." Actually, I know why they won't do this, because Comcast will pay for the router upgrades and steal all their customers once they find out. So they go around their customers' backs and try dirty dealings with Netflix and others. These guys being duopolies in most markets (substitute AT&T with Verizon in some states) just decided to not compete and simply change the rules at the FCC, which is pretty much a textbook description of collusion.
sliverstorm 12y ago
You only really pay AT&T for one end of the pipe though. If your end can deliver 100Mbit/s, how responsible are they for the other end of the pipe? Have they met their commitment? This is the biggest part I think people are missing- they are not thinking about the upstream end of the pipe. Maybe it's the same story even when you do consider the upstream, but I'd at least like people to acknowledge that aspect.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  I'm a customer, I'm entitled for 500gb as per our agreement. I'm paying for both ends of the pipe.
- randomfool 12y ago
  Netflix is saying that they have sufficient bandwidth on the other side, but that Verizon has a bottleneck in their connection to the backbone.

josh2600 12y ago

I'll reiterate the problem carriers face that I stated earlier. Customer revenue is decreasing and because the market is saturated they cannot add enough customers to combat the atrophy of revenue. As shareholders expect growth every year, ISPs are forced to look for new revenue streams. If you don't think they should be doing this as a private company, reclassify them as a utility. Otherwise shareholder demand is what gets satisfied. Carriers have very specific equipment amortization patterns in their heads and they are financial models that banks accept. If carriers have to change their amortization patterns (more routers, faster) they have to change their financing which damages the value of the stock. Sure we can do this, but what does "fair" mean here? I'm trying to say that the argument is not as black and white as people make it out to be.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>If carriers have to change their amortization patterns (more routers, faster) they have to change their financing which damages the value of the stock. Welcome to the world of business. Change is constant, you can't just tell your customers, "Whoops we didn't plan for that." I also disagree that its as hopeless as you make it out to be (in many nations 100mbps or even 1gbps unlimited internet is trivial to get). They can raise prices on customers, lower caps, throttle netflix users, etc if they're in such financial dire straits. Their competitors will love this as customers will migrate to them. Their competitors may have a more nimble management structure and can provide the data at this level. What I don't get, assuming they really are in dire straits and not trying to monetize artificial scarcity, is why don't they just push out a notice, "Due to network limitations, we are throttling streaming video users to 4mbps which is enough for medium quality 720p streaming. The investment to support 1080p streaming is impossible for us. Love Verizon." Actually, I know why they won't do this, because Comcast will pay for the router upgrades and steal all their customers once they find out. So they go around their customers' backs and try dirty dealings with Netflix and others. These guys being duopolies in most markets (substitute AT&T with Verizon in some states) just decided to not compete and simply change the rules at the FCC, which is pretty much a textbook description of collusion.

sliverstorm 12y ago

You only really pay AT&T for one end of the pipe though. If your end can deliver 100Mbit/s, how responsible are they for the other end of the pipe? Have they met their commitment? This is the biggest part I think people are missing- they are not thinking about the upstream end of the pipe. Maybe it's the same story even when you do consider the upstream, but I'd at least like people to acknowledge that aspect.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
I'm a customer, I'm entitled for 500gb as per our agreement. I'm paying for both ends of the pipe.
randomfool 12y ago
Netflix is saying that they have sufficient bandwidth on the other side, but that Verizon has a bottleneck in their connection to the backbone.