<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com">mike@mtcc.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 10/11/21 12:49 AM, Matthew Petach
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Instead of a 4K stream, drop it to 480 or 240; the
eyeball network </div>
<div>should be happy at the reduced strain the resulting
stream puts </div>
<div>on their network. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>As a consumer paying for my 4k stream, I know who I'm calling
when it drops to 480 and it ain't Netflix. The eyeballs are most
definitely not happy.</p>
<p>Mike</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I apologize for that. I was tired after two back-to-back days </div><div>of board meetings, and I missed putting a clear sarcasm </div><div>marker on that last line about "the eyeball networks </div><div>should be happy at the reduced strain..." :(</div><div><br></div><div>There should have been a clear ;-P at the end of </div><div>the line to make it unmistakeable I was poking a </div><div>very sharp stick at the eyeball networks and </div><div>what it takes to actually make them happy. ^_^;</div><div><br></div><div>Yes--the end consumers really shouldn't be the hostage </div><div>in this battle, being moved about the chess board by </div><div>either side, whether by their ISP trying to squeeze </div><div>more money out of the content side, or by the content </div><div>side trying to force more complaints into the service </div><div>desk of the ISP.</div><div><br></div><div>I mean, imagine this scenario for any other utility.</div><div><br></div><div>Pacific Gas and Electric calling up Hoover Dam to </div><div>say "hey, we're going to need to charge you some </div><div>additional money this month."</div><div><br></div><div>Hoover Dam: "...what?"</div><div><br></div><div>PGE: "well, you're sending a lot more electricity to </div><div>our customers this month, and we're going to have </div><div>to upgrade our power lines to handle it; and since </div><div>you're the one sending the electricity, you should </div><div>pay for part of the costs."</div><div><br></div><div>Hoover Dam: "...we're only sending enough electricity </div><div>to meet the demands YOUR customers are placing on </div><div>the grid. If they want to run their air conditioners all </div><div>summer long, you need to charge them enough to </div><div>cover your costs for it."</div><div><br></div><div>Drat. My analogy just ran out, because I realize the </div><div>dollars already flow the other way, and the hydroelectric </div><div>station would just laugh at PG&E and threaten to raise </div><div>the cost of the electricity simply for having to listen to their BS. ^_^;</div><div><br></div><div>You can run the same scenario with your municipal water </div><div>company, and imagine how it would play out if the municipality </div><div>that put the pipes in to every home tried to charge the water </div><div>supplier more because homes were taking longer showers.</div><div><br></div><div>It's just such a fundamentally broken model, we laugh at it </div><div>in any other industry. :(</div><div><br></div><div>Again, I'm sorry for being tired and missing the explicit </div><div>sarcasm indicator--not just for you, but for others who also </div><div>responded to that paragraph. ^_^;</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div><br></div><div>Matt</div><div><br></div></div></div>