Netflix fights attempt to make streaming firms pay for ISP network upgrades

[GURPS]

Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters spoke out against a European proposal to make streaming providers and other online firms pay for ISPs' network upgrades.

"Some of our ISP partners have proposed taxing entertainment companies to subsidize their network infrastructure," Peters said in a speech Tuesday at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona (transcript). The "tax would have an adverse effect, reducing investment in content—hurting the creative community, hurting the attractiveness of higher-priced broadband packages, and ultimately hurting consumers," he argued.

ISPs have been seeking payments for years, and their demands are now being evaluated by European regulators in an exploratory consultation. The European Commission last week started taking public input on the proposal to make online platforms pay for telecom companies' broadband network upgrades and expansions.

"ISPs claim that these taxes would only apply to Netflix. But this will inevitably change over time as broadcasters shift from linear to streaming," Peters said at MWC.

Sandvine data suggests that nearly half of global Internet traffic is sent by Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix, and Microsoft. Online video accounts for 65 percent of all traffic, and Netflix recently passed YouTube as the top video-traffic generator.

Netflix fights attempt to make streaming firms pay for ISP network upgrades

Netflix to EU: ISPs are trying to charge twice for the same infrastructure.

arstechnica.com

 

[Clem72]

This is a stupid money grab, as it has been every time.

I pay my ISP for access/data, Netflix pays their ISP for access/data. Just because more people choose to use netflix over the walstreet journal doesn't mean netflix owes the end user's ISP money. It doesn't work this way naturally, because all parties involved already balance payment vs services naturally. So the ISPs try to get laws changed forcing the issue.

It's like if your cable company started hitting up Fox News and ESPN for their upgrades since those are the most watched channels, when in fact it goes the other way around (they draw the most subscribers so your cable company has to pay them the most...)

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters spoke out against a European proposal to make streaming providers and other online firms pay for ISPs' network upgrades.

"Some of our ISP partners have proposed taxing entertainment companies to subsidize their network infrastructure," Peters said in a speech Tuesday at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona (transcript). The "tax would have an adverse effect, reducing investment in content—hurting the creative community, hurting the attractiveness of higher-priced broadband packages, and ultimately hurting consumers," he argued.

ISPs have been seeking payments for years, and their demands are now being evaluated by European regulators in an exploratory consultation. The European Commission last week started taking public input on the proposal to make online platforms pay for telecom companies' broadband network upgrades and expansions.

"ISPs claim that these taxes would only apply to Netflix. But this will inevitably change over time as broadcasters shift from linear to streaming," Peters said at MWC.

Sandvine data suggests that nearly half of global Internet traffic is sent by Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Netflix, and Microsoft. Online video accounts for 65 percent of all traffic, and Netflix recently passed YouTube as the top video-traffic generator.

Netflix fights attempt to make streaming firms pay for ISP network upgrades

Netflix to EU: ISPs are trying to charge twice for the same infrastructure.

arstechnica.com

Wonder where pornhub is in there. At college in the 90s one of the network guys told me over 60% of the schools traffic was porn.

 

[GURPS]

How Much of the Internet Consists of Porn?​

Porn Sites Get More Visitors Each Month Than Netflix, Amazon And Twitter Combined​

35% of the internet bandwidth is pornography – 5 interesting facts about internet usage​

35% of all internet usage and downloads are of pornography nature but here are also the other 5 interesting facts about internet bandwidth usage.

The average time spent on a pornographic site is between 15 and 20 minutes. And one of the most popular pornography websites (xvideos.com / pornhub.com) hosts over 100TB of porn and serves more than 100 million pages per day.

This equates to an average of 950 terabytes of data transferred per day. Though more accurately gathered in developed worlds this massive data includes traffic from Zambia.

 

[Kyle]

 

[vraiblonde]

Of course streaming services should kick in for the infrastructure that supports their product. Why wouldn't they? Every other industry has to pay cost of goods, why shouldn't streaming providers?

If you own a widget store and the cost to manufacture widgets goes up, do you just tell the widget maker that no, you won't pay more? Of course not - you pay the widget maker and raise your price to the consumer to cover it. Duh.

This Netflix CEO is a supertard. "Oh, if we have to pay the ISPs then we can't put that money into content!" Yeah, durhard, and if the ISP isn't profitable it goes away, and then what happens? If it can't upgrade its network to meet the demand for your product, then what happens?

Duh.

 

[GURPS]

Of course streaming services should kick in for the infrastructure that supports their product. Why wouldn't they? Every other industry has to pay cost of goods, why shouldn't streaming providers?

I don't think so, any company already pays for an ' internet ' connection based on various variables ...

Speed, monthly volume of data .....

Serice Providers should raise their prices accordingly, not try and end run after the fact

pay us more because you use so much


back in the days of dial up ... I paid for ' unlimited ' access .... until I started staying dialed 24 hrs a day, then suddenly Earthlink starts sending me emails I was not allowed to be connected more than 23 hrs a day

that IS NOT the defination of Unlimited Access

 

[vraiblonde]

back in the days of dial up ... I paid for ' unlimited ' access .... until I started staying dialed 24 hrs a day, then suddenly Earthlink starts sending me emails I was not allowed to be connected more than 23 hrs a day

that IS NOT the defination of Unlimited Access

They claimed unlimited access based on usage data. Then people like you abused it for no other reason than because you could, and ruined it for everyone.

 

[GURPS]

Then people like you abused it

Then don't sell ' unlimited ' access


unlimited

ŭn-lĭm′ĭ-tĭd

adjective​

1. Having no restrictions or controls.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite.
3. Without qualification or exception; absolute.

 

[vraiblonde]

Then don't sell ' unlimited ' access


unlimited

ŭn-lĭm′ĭ-tĭd

adjective​

1. Having no restrictions or controls.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite.
3. Without qualification or exception; absolute.

Right, kind of like the "unlimited buffet" that will roll you out of there after your 10th plate.

"Unlimited" doesn't mean you should be a pig about it.

 

[Kyle]

Right, kind of like the "unlimited buffet" that will roll you out of there after your 10th plate.

"Unlimited" doesn't mean you should be a pig about it.

 

[HemiHauler]

Of course streaming services should kick in for the infrastructure that supports their product. Why wouldn't they? Every other industry has to pay cost of goods, why shouldn't streaming providers?

If you own a widget store and the cost to manufacture widgets goes up, do you just tell the widget maker that no, you won't pay more? Of course not - you pay the widget maker and raise your price to the consumer to cover it. Duh.

This Netflix CEO is a supertard. "Oh, if we have to pay the ISPs then we can't put that money into content!" Yeah, durhard, and if the ISP isn't profitable it goes away, and then what happens? If it can't upgrade its network to meet the demand for your product, then what happens?

Duh.

What a load of horsechit.

ISPs already charge providers and consumers. This would be like UPS or FedEx charging shippers and recipients for package delivery and then shaking down shippers for a new fleet of trucks.

There isn't a single Tier 1 ISP who isn't sitting on LOADS of cash the aren't investing. Just run down the financial statements of the largest ISPs.

This isn't they way our markets work. Sheesh.

 

[Clem72]

Of course streaming services should kick in for the infrastructure that supports their product. Why wouldn't they? Every other industry has to pay cost of goods, why shouldn't streaming providers?

So you're falling hook line and sinker for the mainstream media talking points on this one?

The streamers already pay for everything. They pay for the content, the servers, the bandwidth, the infrastructure, all of it all of the way up to the customer facing ISP. The only thing they don't pay for is the tiny portion where you connect to the internet, which is supposed to be paid for by your monthly bill.

But okay, these big ISPs get paid billions and billions of tax dollars by to build out infrastructure, then they are paid by the subscribers for the service, but now they should also be paid by the people who provide them the content that makes their service valuable?

Maybe this example will get through to you. I assume this forum and the whole SOMD.com site gets paid through advertisers. They pay you based on how many times people view them or click on them. You also make money from subscriptions from some of the users. Do you think it would be a good idea to also charge some of your premium users, like GURPS, extra because they post the most topics? Topics that engage others and bring them back to the site again and again? From the outside it would look like Gurps is making your site money posting so many stories every day. But what if you could get the government to force Gurps to pay you on top of also driving eyeballs to your site. WIn Win right? Right?

 

[vraiblonde]

So you're falling hook line and sinker for the mainstream media talking points on this one?

This is the very first I've heard of it so there have been no MSM talking points that I have even seen, let alone fallen for.

This may shock you, but I can actually think for myself and don't need the TV telling me what to think.

 

[vraiblonde]

They pay you based on how many times people view them or click on them.

No, they don't. Sorry, try again.

It also doesn't cost us more when we have more traffic.

 

[HemiHauler]

This may shock you, but I can actually think for myself and don't need the TV telling me what to think.

Phew!

DYING OVER HERE!

 

[OccamsRazor]

Do you think it would be a good idea to also charge some of your premium users, like GURPS, extra because they post the most topics? Topics that engage others and bring them back to the site again and again? From the outside it would look like Gurps is making your site money posting so many stories every day. But what if you could get the government to force Gurps to pay you on top of also driving eyeballs to your site. WIn Win right? Right?

WAIT!... then who is paying for the spam story links?

 

[DaSDGuy]

Raise your price to the consumer to cover it.

You can simplify your answer and just raise the prices to the consumer at the ISP level to pay for the ISP infrastructure improvements. SMECO does it. Why not the ISP's? And not just at our user level because NETFLIX is also a consumer so they pay higher prices too.

 

[OccamsRazor]

You can simplify your answer and just raise the prices to the consumer at the ISP level to pay for the ISP infrastructure improvements.

Breezeline already does this. It is called the "High Speed Network Recovery Fee."

 

[Kyle]

Breezeline already does this. It is called the "High Speed Network Recovery Fee."

I've been thinking about charging them a "Jeezuz ####ing Cripes, The Routers Down Again" fee.