When Everyone Wants To Watch 'House Of Cards,' Who Pays?

In what other industry can you accept payment for a service and then try to make a legitimate claim that you then don't have to provide that service or maintain the infrastructure you are selling? It's fucking nuts.

When the so called "free market" fails and you have monopolies in place that are so anti-competitive and anti-consumer, then maybe it's time to go looking for another solution.

Perhaps this is the situation when it's time to look for some sort of state or government regulation. Or maybe it's the exact opposite. Perhaps these companies are in control of tight regulatory procedures that it prevents competition. I'm not overly familiar with the current system in place in the US, but whatever the current situation is, you really need to start demanding the exact opposite.

Rachel pays Time Warner for her broadband connection to get her data from anywhere on the internet, as was sold to her by Time Warner which is the current day technology that is expected of broadband network access. Time Warner built their network upon receiving many tax breaks for their prime market position.

Rachel pays Netflix for the content that comes through the network.

The system is correctly setup except one minor flaw, if Time Warner doesn't want to pay for it then a competitor can't offer the same service or get the same funding and breaks they did to compete.

The broadband companies are lethargic dinosaurs, hopefully network access will go right over their heads (even if by Zuckerberg drones), when wires aren't needed we can release them.

The ISPs appear to be confused about who it is that's paying them for a pipe. I'll offer them a hint: it's the people you send those rate increase notices to every 12 months.

I have a condo in Chicago and was delighted to learn that a company was offering our building last mile connectivity via microwave along with SLAs for not only bandwidth but latency as well (to which point I don't recall)! Sadly, the condo board didn't seem so enthralled. Unlike the suburbs, city folk have more options apparently.

People all of a sudden start to notice that House Of Cards plays more smoothly over their 4G cell connection than their expensive cable connection, and how does Time Warner explain that?

Let's say everyone in the United States had a second mailbox, and each mailbox is owned by FedEx, UPS, or DHL. To ship a package, you leave it in your box, it's picked up by your carrier, transferred to the recipient's carrier, who then delivers it to their box. Only the sender is billed, and this shipment fee includes whatever your carrier will have to pay to your recipient's carrier to complete delivery.

When these mailboxes are built, most people in the country are shipping as many boxes as they receive, and the number of packages sent by and received by customers of each carrier are roughly the same (let's say a total of 15,000 per day). So FedEx, UPS, and DHL, to avoid having to track every single package, just decide to "call it a wash" and deliver each other's boxes for free, under the assumption that nobody's really getting the upper hand.

Fast forward twenty years, and Jeff Bezos has built Amazon.com at his house. His house is a UPS house, so UPS picks up 15 million boxes from him every morning, and hands over 10 million of them to FedEx and DHL for delivery. FedEx and DHL are billing their customers for 15,000 boxes but also have to deliver Bezos' 10 million boxes.

You can imagine that they'd want to revisit their original agreement to "call it a wash" and start billing by the actual package.

So, should we start debating whether UPS should pay for roads directly in each city?

Are our roads going to start being "content aware" & extorting delivery service vendors?

...Me? Do I not pay for my internet service? Are ISP's not subsidized to build infrastructure by my tax dollars? Is my ISP running at a deficit? Yes, yes, and no, I don't believe so. I pay Netflix for the content, I pay my ISP to deliver it.