6 ms·

First off, most of the things you're taking out of the monthly were already factored into the fronted cost in the linked article. Second off, if Verizon does t

by jbooth 12y ago

First off, most of the things you're taking out of the monthly were already factored into the fronted cost in the linked article. Second off, if Verizon does that shitty of a job of cost control compared to foreign government bureaucracies, maybe we should consider nationalizing them. But back to my actual point -- It costs money to deliver the service? Charge more for the service if you can't deliver it profitably. That's fine, I even suggested that in my comment, charitably allowing for 2 different ways they can do it. I'm going to pay anyways, whether it's a check to verizon or additional costs on my amazon streaming -- I'd rather pay up front for the service I'm consuming than f-up the marketplace with a bunch of submerged hidden transactions. That's why libertarians are on board with liberals on this, they believe in market transparency. What's your objection to our actual point? Remember, raising the price for the service they deliver to their customers is ok, we're not arguing they should provide it at a loss. You'd rather the costs of the network were hidden in a bunch of backroom deals? You think that netflix paying comcast won't ultimately come out of consumer pockets anyways?

rayiner 12y ago
> First off, most of the things you're taking out of the monthly were already factored into the fronted cost in the linked article. No they're not. They cover, e.g., marketing to get you to hook up in the first place, but not, e.g., marketing to keep you from switching to Comcast a year later. They account for the cost of hookup, but not, e.g., ongoing maintenance. As to your other point, charging up front is not the same as charging services that operate on top. The former effectively creates a cross-subsidy: my parents who just want fast-loading web pages end up subsidizing Netflix junkies. Now you can charge per-GB, but Netflix really doesn't want to go in that direction. They're quite happy with this implicit cross-subsidy. "Market transparency" is a red herring. You pay $10 per month to Netflix, because that's the value of that content to you. You don't care if some of that money goes to Verizon any more than you care that some of it goes to the studios that own the content. Indeed, the "backroom deals" ultimately have the effect of allowing Verizon to capture the costs from the people who derive the most value from the infrastructure, because the consumer value represented by one GB is not equal across services.
- jbooth 12y ago
  I must be doing a really bad job of writing, because you're not addressing the point I was trying to make at all. I'm ok with paying $100 for internet access (well, not really, but still). If $100 cannot get me internet access at the advertised speeds, I'm ok with paying 120, or whatever additional cost per GB. What I'm not ok with, is if $100 doesn't do it, Verizon goes out and shakes down the companies I do business with on the internet connection that I ostensibly paid for, who then raise their prices (gotta pay the bills) for reasons I don't understand. I'm still going to pay, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And not only does this obscure information about the real cost of my connection and the services I use (and that does matter), not only does it open the door to all kinds of anti-competitive practices around who gets the best deal with comcast/verizon, it's guaranteed to be less efficient than just upgrading the network and charging me for what it costs. Now I'm paying for all the hotel rooms and buffet spreads that went into that deal being struck? In addition to the cost of the fiber? Just build the fiber, and charge the customer (me) for it.
  - harryh 12y ago
    What you are ok with paying and what the median Verizon customer is ok with are probably not the same thing.
    - jbooth 12y ago
      I'm about as ok with paying $100 for internet as I am with paying $4/gallon for gas during the summer. Read: not very. But that's what it costs. Make it clear to the consumer what things cost and they'll either curtail their usage or cough up the money. Maybe they should have a charge per GB of transfer over some monthly limit. I don't know. But obscuring it through a bunch of additional business deals on the back-end isn't going to make those costs go away, it's just a way to hide them and delay the day when ISPs compete with each other on actual cost per GB delivered.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - 12y ago

by jbooth 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

> First off, most of the things you're taking out of the monthly were already factored into the fronted cost in the linked article. No they're not. They cover, e.g., marketing to get you to hook up in the first place, but not, e.g., marketing to keep you from switching to Comcast a year later. They account for the cost of hookup, but not, e.g., ongoing maintenance. As to your other point, charging up front is not the same as charging services that operate on top. The former effectively creates a cross-subsidy: my parents who just want fast-loading web pages end up subsidizing Netflix junkies. Now you can charge per-GB, but Netflix really doesn't want to go in that direction. They're quite happy with this implicit cross-subsidy. "Market transparency" is a red herring. You pay $10 per month to Netflix, because that's the value of that content to you. You don't care if some of that money goes to Verizon any more than you care that some of it goes to the studios that own the content. Indeed, the "backroom deals" ultimately have the effect of allowing Verizon to capture the costs from the people who derive the most value from the infrastructure, because the consumer value represented by one GB is not equal across services.

jbooth 12y ago
I must be doing a really bad job of writing, because you're not addressing the point I was trying to make at all. I'm ok with paying $100 for internet access (well, not really, but still). If $100 cannot get me internet access at the advertised speeds, I'm ok with paying 120, or whatever additional cost per GB. What I'm not ok with, is if $100 doesn't do it, Verizon goes out and shakes down the companies I do business with on the internet connection that I ostensibly paid for, who then raise their prices (gotta pay the bills) for reasons I don't understand. I'm still going to pay, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And not only does this obscure information about the real cost of my connection and the services I use (and that does matter), not only does it open the door to all kinds of anti-competitive practices around who gets the best deal with comcast/verizon, it's guaranteed to be less efficient than just upgrading the network and charging me for what it costs. Now I'm paying for all the hotel rooms and buffet spreads that went into that deal being struck? In addition to the cost of the fiber? Just build the fiber, and charge the customer (me) for it.
- harryh 12y ago
  What you are ok with paying and what the median Verizon customer is ok with are probably not the same thing.
  - jbooth 12y ago
    I'm about as ok with paying $100 for internet as I am with paying $4/gallon for gas during the summer. Read: not very. But that's what it costs. Make it clear to the consumer what things cost and they'll either curtail their usage or cough up the money. Maybe they should have a charge per GB of transfer over some monthly limit. I don't know. But obscuring it through a bunch of additional business deals on the back-end isn't going to make those costs go away, it's just a way to hide them and delay the day when ISPs compete with each other on actual cost per GB delivered.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- 12y ago