Huge ISPs want per-GB payments from Netflix, YouTube

Re:Huge ISPs want per-GB payments from Netflix, YouTube by jschuur on Monday January 31, 2011 @08:46PM (#2164069)

What I don't understand is why ISPs are giving their content providing customers fixed rate access. From the article: "In both cases these charges are generally flat fees, not linked with usage..."

This doesn't sound like double dipping at all. Why should Netflix not be charged more based on how many resources are used? I do at Linode and DreamHost.

I guess the real question is what about other ISPs that Netflix's ISPs connect to? How do they get reimbursed by traffic over their lines, when one of their customers access Netflix? Do peering agreements not accurately work that out?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Huge ISPs want per-GB payments from Netflix, YouTube by wmf on Monday January 31, 2011 @09:56PM (#2164228)

The article is confusingly worded: "Most Online Service Providers pay their Connectivity Provider(s) to be connected to the Internet, which is generally based on the bandwidth they require... In both cases these charges are generally flat fees, not linked with usage..." So a content company may pay a "flat fee" per 10 Gbps port, but of course the number of ports they use is proportional to their peak hour traffic, so essentially they are paying per Gbps.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Huge ISPs want per-GB payments from Netflix, YouTube by jschuur on Monday January 31, 2011 @10:24PM (#2164296)

Well in that case, I find it hard to have sympathy for the ISPs wanting to make even more money.

Their bandwidth charges should be equal to their own costs, plus a little room for profits. A little.

[ Parent | on HN ]