171–180 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
End users generally don't pay for consuming extra bandwidth, so the injury isn't obvious. SMS spam, though, had a very clear injury when you were charged for the privilege of receiving a message.
On mobile it's very common to have data caps, so end users do pay for the bandwidth used by ads indirectly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH", "Public uproar would be immense." You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.
I do recognize the cognitive dissonance of my statement. I am just surprised at the restraint that ISPs have shown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On mobile it's very common to have data caps, so end users do pay for the bandwidth used by ads indirectly.
Yeah, data caps was something common a few years ago...
https://www.fastcompany.com/90580656/comcast-data-cap-remote...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a consumer I paid my ISP to carry say 50 Gb/s of data. They took my money on the understanding it's their job to carry that data for me. If I only wanted to browse text I wouldn't be paying for 50Gb/s. What did they think I was going to do?
You have... 50 Gb/s in your area?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really is wild. ISPs have been overselling "unlimited" connections for forever, and being paid for it, but when their customers actually want to use literally the service they paid for, _legally_, it's somehow wrong? I guess that's the thing with Netflix though, it's torrent-like traffic, but legal, so there's no excuse to stop it and they have to come up with something. "oh they're generating explosive traffic th…
How is Netflix traffic torrent-like? It's large volumes of video data received over HTTPS connections. Users perform negligible upload apart from ACK packets.
They're essentially making the point that if I build a website, spend large portions of my own money hosting it, and it becomes popular, I should also be charged extra by the ISPs of the users who access my site.
We're in clown world at this point.
Squid Game is one of those shows you can never "unwatch". It's quite harrowing but strangely addictive and a great critique of modern capitalism. Strongly recommended if you have the stomach for it
I'm dubious of this common posture of "horrible violence in entertainment" is ok because it's a critique of XYZ. It's like "free guy" (spoiler boring) tries to be a critique of video Game violence by positing the existence of another gaming reality where people are nice to each other. But this other reality is just a Macguffin. We come to watch the violence and mayhem and we come to watch squid game for the same reas…
Considering your comment seems to be targeted at pseudo-intellectualism the irony here is simply off the charts.
A lot of commentors here are defending that netflix shouldn't pay data charges. I don't know how internet prices works for big players, but from the perspective of a little guy, it seems kinda reasonable that netlflix pay, doesn't it? I mean, why am I paying for bandwidth on AWS? Shouldn't that be paid for by the downloading party? If I download something from my neighbors computer over a p2p app, then we both still…
How anyone could side with the ISP here is beyond baffling. They're essentially making the point that if I build a website, spend large portions of my own money hosting it, and it becomes popular, I should also be charged extra by the ISPs of the users who access my site. We're in clown world at this point.
> Netflix said it will review SK Broadband's claim, and seek dialogue and explore ways in the meantime to work with SK Broadband to ensure customers are not affected. In other words, they will ship some Open Connect Appliance boxes to the ISP. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ And that’s nice for everyone. Some think it’s unfair that big players like Netflix can do so. But I think them doing that is far far better…
I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't go over nearly as well as this.