Someone interested in how it might work imagining a system similar to Netflix for ISP subscriptions
Someone interested in how it might work imagining a system similar to Netflix for ISP subscriptions
Bandwidth represents the most economical option when compared to other expenses for an ISP. Although we incur six-figure monthly charges for peering and transit with numerous partners, the true expense lies in the underlying network infrastructure. Bandwidth at the edge is only a small part of the overall cost.
Our audit last year showed each customer’s maintenance expense at $32 per person. This figure covers basic needs like electricity, pole licensing, licenses for access platforms, state and database fees, among others. Essentially, it reflects the minimum required to maintain fiber lines and ONTs. However, this figure does not include bandwidth costs, core infrastructure upkeep (hardware, software licenses, upgrades, expansion), operational expenses (NOC, support, engineering), OSP services, installation, maintenance, or standard business operations.
In short, the real burden often goes unnoticed—there’s a substantial hidden cost to simply having equipment in place. This debate has resurfaced in recent years among standards organizations. Historically, long-distance calls were paid by callers, reflecting fairness. Today, similar ideas are being discussed for internet services.
Post-pandemic, as streaming and high data usage surged, providers faced pressure to justify the massive infrastructure investments they made. Many argued that consumers should bear a larger share of these costs since they benefit from free access while profits flow to providers. The consumer pays higher bandwidth plans, which in turn fund the network upgrades.
In essence, services profit from users, some of which is reinvested into infrastructure, and all other costs fall on the providers. This dynamic could shift if providers are held accountable for their usage-based contributions. If a large share of traffic comes from high-consumption groups like YouTube or Netflix, they may eventually absorb part of these expenses. Ultimately, this discussion offers a path toward more transparent and potentially cheaper bandwidth options for consumers.
Highly contested, since this could violate net neutrality and a tiny startup might struggle with excessive data costs. For instance, I host videos online and pay for unlimited traffic, but my bandwidth is limited. If I had to charge per bandwidth usage, it might be more affordable, yet a single malicious user could repeatedly download the same video and cause serious issues.
Absolutely agree. Both perspectives have merit. It's encouraging to see they're analyzing every possible situation, which could significantly impact the situation. The positive side is that they're thoroughly examining each scenario, potentially eliminating a large portion of problematic sites quickly.