Re:Appeals court upholds FCC's net neutrality order
by criddell on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @01:36PM
(#11903725)
I don't think there's a problem because the ISP isn't involved. As soon as the service decides to deal with the ISP directly for the sake of efficiency (ie one rebate vs many), suddenly there's a problem because something shady could happen? I don't think that makes sense.
Netflix has a program where they will place servers inside an ISP's network. This allows them to deliver video without paying a third party for transit. If this lowers their costs, they could theoretically pass those savings on to the customers of that ISP (Google Fiber customers, for example). I wonder if Netflix offering their service to those customers for $5 / month and other ISP customers for $10 / month would be a net neutrality violation?
The same goes for movies on YouTube. Because Google doesn't have to pay for transit, they could undercut Amazon and Apple. Is charging less because their costs are less anti-competitive?
Netflix has a program where they will place servers inside an ISP's network. This allows them to deliver video without paying a third party for transit. If this lowers their costs, they could theoretically pass those savings on to the customers of that ISP (Google Fiber customers, for example). I wonder if Netflix offering their service to those customers for $5 / month and other ISP customers for $10 / month would be a net neutrality violation?
The same goes for movies on YouTube. Because Google doesn't have to pay for transit, they could undercut Amazon and Apple. Is charging less because their costs are less anti-competitive?