[pas]

They want to maximize profits. So keeping costs down is important, but it's even more important to keep competitors out of the game.

Currently they have no serious competitors, so they see the Comcast-tax as a pure added cost. But if this practice goes big and becomes an added cost to the market, barriers to enter it become higher, which keeps their position entrenched.

Of course this would require a lot of formalisation (and quantization, estimating numbers, times and potential competition and market evolution) but still, most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads.

[Karunamon]

>Currently they have no serious competitors

Prime video. Hulu.

>most of the same questions are going through Netflix executives' heads.

Conjecture. Contrary to populist belief, not every corporation is a soulless, amoral entity. Netflix has yet to demonstrate in even the smallest way that they are for anything but complete neutrality.

[Jtsummers]

Indeed, it's hugely to their benefit to be for net neutrality these days. A non-neutral internet would drive up costs for them and/or their customers for the data connection. If it drives up their costs it eats into their profit margin and they either soak it or raise prices. If it raises customer costs as a general increase on broadband cost, then customers have less money to spend on Netflix and other services. If it drives up customer costs because they now have to pay a Netflix prioritization fee, then they might not choose Netflix at all when Mediacom/TWC/Cox/whoever is offering a cheaper streaming media service.