Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tedsanders 4466 days ago
I find the argument pretty compelling. If Netflix usage requires more internet pipes to be upgraded, then it seems logical that Netflix users should pay rather than internet users in general.

However, it all presumes that we can attribute increased demand to Netflix and Netflix alone. Suppose you have two services, A and B, which each require 10 ZB of ISP bandwidth. The ISP builds 20 ZB of capacity and the world is happy. Now a third service, C, comes along and requires 10 ZB more of bandwidth, requiring the ISP to upgrade its 20 ZB pipes to 30 ZB. Does it make sense for the ISP/society to charge service C for that network upgrade? C's only crime is arriving last. Otherwise, it is identical to A and B in terms of the load placed on the network. It seems you me you could just as plausibly blame sustained demand for B as much as new demand for C.

I'm conflicted.

2 comments

IMHO, the extra cost should be passed on to the consumer. This way, we don't get 1 ISP having deals with services A, B and C making people not switch due no other ISP having those same deals and no new ISPs come up because they can't get the same deals because nobody wants to switch.
There is already a vocabulary for why you are conflicted. It is called the insurance effect: Even though all the non-heavy users of the Internet are paying, in their flat rate bill, for the heavy users, most of them are OK with that arrangement because they are "insuring" themselves against the day when they, too, might become a heavy user.

What you are articulating is the risk that one day, you might move a few terabytes of photos, or upload your music collection to Google Play Music, or buy Carbonite backup, and you have only a vague idea what each of those services are going to do to your bandwidth use.

In theory it is rational to pay per bit, but that also assumes you know much more about your future use patterns than any consumer would know.

Now here comes the plot twist: Do m2m customers get cheap rates because they are willing to pay per bit? Noooooooo! They take it up the ass on a cost per bit basis. So maybe ISPs are just greedy bastards.