3 ms·

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but in their bridge analogy, wouldn't the drivers be more analogous to the users than to Netflix? If anything, Netflix would be the city f

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but in their bridge analogy, wouldn't the drivers be more analogous to the users than to Netflix? If anything, Netflix would be the city full of employment opportunities that drivers are commuting to and from across the bridge. So a more fitting comparison would be 'like blaming the city at the other end of the bridge for traffic jams..' Either way, brilliant response, and hopefully Verizon gets the hint.

rmrfrmrf 12y ago
I thought it was a reference to the Gov. Chris Christie bridge scandal, alluding to Verizon's corrupt nature.
- bryondowd 12y ago
  Most definitely. But Verizon hasn't quite gone so far as blaming it's own customers for using Netflix, just blaming Netflix for attracting so much traffic.
  - rmrfrmrf 12y ago
    Maybe you're just trying to read too much into the analogy. I think Netflix is basically saying that the infrastructure is there (the bridge), but despite the fact that usage has increased (rush hour), Verizon is artificially capping speed (keeping lanes closed) to its users (the cars) by demanding that Netflix pay extra for Verizon to open more lanes on the bridge.
    - bryondowd 12y ago
      Yes, I certainly read too much into it. Just pointing out a flaw in the analogy. Verizon demanding that Netflix pay extra for users to access its content would be more like the Christie demanding the city of New York to pay for more lanes to be opened on the bridge. While simultaneously charging the drivers (the users) for access to it.
      - jdmichal 12y ago
        Analogies are always flawed. Must we really continue to dive deep into every one and point out all the flaws, or can we start to just read them at the face value they were written at and move on?
kevingadd 12y ago
The distinction is that in your proposed scenario the third parties are the ones deciding whether or not to travel across the bridge, so the only thing the cities can do is try to anticipate bridge usage and make sure they have enough lanes. With the Verizon/Netflix relationship, Verizon upsells higher-speed plans by advertising better speeds for online services like Netflix. They already sell high-speed connections to their customers with advertised speeds far in excess of what you'll actually get when using a service like Netflix. So it is a bit intrinsically dishonest for them to try and pin blame for service congestion on Netflix when (generally speaking) other ISPs manage to deliver much higher connection speeds, closer to what customers are actually paying for. So a better bridge analogue in this scenario would be if people paid up front for access to the bridge. Some people might pay for the bridge and use it rarely, other people might pay for the bridge and use it all the time. Anyone who pays for bridge access and uses it every day can rightly expect that they should be able to get across the bridge, and the bridge operators can try to cut costs by estimating actual bridge usage and investing a little bit less in lanes & other services. If they mess up their estimates, the people who pay to use full time will be delayed and get frustrated.

rmrfrmrf 12y ago

I thought it was a reference to the Gov. Chris Christie bridge scandal, alluding to Verizon's corrupt nature.

bryondowd 12y ago
Most definitely. But Verizon hasn't quite gone so far as blaming it's own customers for using Netflix, just blaming Netflix for attracting so much traffic.
- rmrfrmrf 12y ago
  Maybe you're just trying to read too much into the analogy. I think Netflix is basically saying that the infrastructure is there (the bridge), but despite the fact that usage has increased (rush hour), Verizon is artificially capping speed (keeping lanes closed) to its users (the cars) by demanding that Netflix pay extra for Verizon to open more lanes on the bridge.
  - bryondowd 12y ago
    Yes, I certainly read too much into it. Just pointing out a flaw in the analogy. Verizon demanding that Netflix pay extra for users to access its content would be more like the Christie demanding the city of New York to pay for more lanes to be opened on the bridge. While simultaneously charging the drivers (the users) for access to it.
    - jdmichal 12y ago
      Analogies are always flawed. Must we really continue to dive deep into every one and point out all the flaws, or can we start to just read them at the face value they were written at and move on?

kevingadd 12y ago

The distinction is that in your proposed scenario the third parties are the ones deciding whether or not to travel across the bridge, so the only thing the cities can do is try to anticipate bridge usage and make sure they have enough lanes. With the Verizon/Netflix relationship, Verizon upsells higher-speed plans by advertising better speeds for online services like Netflix. They already sell high-speed connections to their customers with advertised speeds far in excess of what you'll actually get when using a service like Netflix. So it is a bit intrinsically dishonest for them to try and pin blame for service congestion on Netflix when (generally speaking) other ISPs manage to deliver much higher connection speeds, closer to what customers are actually paying for. So a better bridge analogue in this scenario would be if people paid up front for access to the bridge. Some people might pay for the bridge and use it rarely, other people might pay for the bridge and use it all the time. Anyone who pays for bridge access and uses it every day can rightly expect that they should be able to get across the bridge, and the bridge operators can try to cut costs by estimating actual bridge usage and investing a little bit less in lanes & other services. If they mess up their estimates, the people who pay to use full time will be delayed and get frustrated.