Yeah, bandwidth costs for us may have dropped, but before Netflix, most people were perfectly happy with a 256k connection, and even with the bandwidth cost being lower, radios being better and everything else that's happened since, it was still cheaper and easier to get a 256k connection to the end user back then than it is to get a 10 meg connection to them now.
But on the other hand, there's pretty large percentage of our customers that I'm fairly sure would cancel service and just use their smart phones for everything if it wasn't for the likes of Netflix. On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Jason McKemie < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote: > >> "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote: >> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress. >> Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's >> bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth? > > > Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on > how much more people are using. > > >> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage, >> inflation, etc etc. >> At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other >> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill? > > > Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more > expensive now. > >> >> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while >> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix - >> > basically the reverse of what they currently do. >> I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait >> until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :) > > > I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are > definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the > huge fight over NN. > > >> >> >> Jared >> >
