4 ms·

I'm thinking from a Consumer's stand point right now. No matter how I see it, it looks like ISPs are at fault in this matter but I've been questioning what the

I'm thinking from a Consumer's stand point right now. No matter how I see it, it looks like ISPs are at fault in this matter but I've been questioning what the outcome will be for the Consumers in the end. If Netflix doesn't pay, wouldn't Verizon and other service providers transfer the cost to Consumers? Or will this also be not allowed for ISP to do? If ISPs want to make more money and charge more, why would they not transfer the cost to Consumers if they cannot charge Netflix and the likes.

delinka 12y ago
You make it sound like we, the customers, aren't already paying; like upgrades to hardware would never be reflected in the prices we pay. It really doesn't matter which company actually writes the check, their costs are reflected in my bill. As well as their profits, executive bonuses... In this case, what matters is that one company is already taking my money for a particular service, half-assing the service itself, taking those profits, and trying to blame someone else.
- uptownhr 12y ago
  That's actually my point. Since upgrades, etc... all are reflected in our bill. When ISPs cannot charge Netflix and the likes in the long run, wouldn't it be reflected on the Consumer's bill? Or will the ISP business become less profitable than expected (from the eyes of ISPs)? I see that ISPs (companies) generally want to make more money. Attempting to charge Netflix is an attempt at that. If they are not able to charge Netflix this extra amount, wouldn't it be logical for them to charge consumers more? As it appears in Netflix's statement, their network is congested. If ISPs want to keep their profit ratio and offer better services to their consumers. Somebody has to pay more. I doubt they would settle for anything less. Again this is just me. I would be interested to hear if there would be anything preventing ISPs from charging their customers more...
  - aredington 12y ago
    Verizon has so much bandwidth to get in and out of their network for broader internet bound and broader internet originating traffic. Netflix has to come in the off ramp that all the torrents, hacker news, and etc. traffic has to come in. Netflix has offered to build a new offramp for Netflix traffic that goes directly into Verizon's network. Netflix is willing to shoulder ALL of the burden of this infrastructure cost, and to maintain it. Verizon has refused the offer, and instead wants to charge Netflix a toll so that their traffic gets to use an EZ-Pass lane, instead of going through the normal slow toll booths that everyone else's traffic goes through.
  - undersuit 12y ago
    >I would be interested to hear if there would be anything preventing ISPs from charging their customers more... Public backlash? Large ISPs are losing subscribers on their normally profitable video and voice packages. Most have a monopoly or duopoly on the data packages, but raising prices will bring more attention to their monopolistic ways, attention they will have to buy off with more and more bribes and lobbying which would also offset any profits. Since they can't recover profits because of complaining customers and they can't lower profits because of complaining share holders they need to find alternative sources of revenue.

delinka 12y ago

You make it sound like we, the customers, aren't already paying; like upgrades to hardware would never be reflected in the prices we pay. It really doesn't matter which company actually writes the check, their costs are reflected in my bill. As well as their profits, executive bonuses... In this case, what matters is that one company is already taking my money for a particular service, half-assing the service itself, taking those profits, and trying to blame someone else.

uptownhr 12y ago
That's actually my point. Since upgrades, etc... all are reflected in our bill. When ISPs cannot charge Netflix and the likes in the long run, wouldn't it be reflected on the Consumer's bill? Or will the ISP business become less profitable than expected (from the eyes of ISPs)? I see that ISPs (companies) generally want to make more money. Attempting to charge Netflix is an attempt at that. If they are not able to charge Netflix this extra amount, wouldn't it be logical for them to charge consumers more? As it appears in Netflix's statement, their network is congested. If ISPs want to keep their profit ratio and offer better services to their consumers. Somebody has to pay more. I doubt they would settle for anything less. Again this is just me. I would be interested to hear if there would be anything preventing ISPs from charging their customers more...
- aredington 12y ago
  Verizon has so much bandwidth to get in and out of their network for broader internet bound and broader internet originating traffic. Netflix has to come in the off ramp that all the torrents, hacker news, and etc. traffic has to come in. Netflix has offered to build a new offramp for Netflix traffic that goes directly into Verizon's network. Netflix is willing to shoulder ALL of the burden of this infrastructure cost, and to maintain it. Verizon has refused the offer, and instead wants to charge Netflix a toll so that their traffic gets to use an EZ-Pass lane, instead of going through the normal slow toll booths that everyone else's traffic goes through.
- undersuit 12y ago
  >I would be interested to hear if there would be anything preventing ISPs from charging their customers more... Public backlash? Large ISPs are losing subscribers on their normally profitable video and voice packages. Most have a monopoly or duopoly on the data packages, but raising prices will bring more attention to their monopolistic ways, attention they will have to buy off with more and more bribes and lobbying which would also offset any profits. Since they can't recover profits because of complaining customers and they can't lower profits because of complaining share holders they need to find alternative sources of revenue.