Big Brother would also have to deal with citizens com
Wait... where am I? How did I get in this cell? Nevermind, you can't hear me through this gag. Damn.
Not that they should be allowed to; and it seems they know this, which is why they're insisting upon a court order.
> I've shared you bolding the text "I want you soooooo bad right now, Kevin." with your wife. Would you like to share this activity publicly?
Yes, keeping the cache as close to its point of use as possible is ideal. For the devices most people are streaming to, that's the ISP. Yes, Netflix could sell a cache device their users could install on their networks, but that incurs support costs for millions of users, many, if not most, of whom wouldn't have the first clue how to plug in a network cable, so no, it's not a viable solution, where an ISP-side cache is not only a viable solution, it's one Netflix has been working with ISPs to implement for a while now; Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T are really the only ones refusing to accept the free equipment at this point.
Furthermore, how, exactly, would a customer cache work in the way you are describing when the most popular package Comcast sells is barely capable of streaming a single HD stream from Netflix while browsing the web and has about 1/10 as much upstream as it does downstream? How is the second user going to stream from the first when the first, even under ideal conditions, can only provide 1/10 of the required throughput? And Netflix caching servers? You realize that Netflix has a CDN, right? If your ISP doesn't have a local Netflix cache (again, Netflix will provide the hardware and support for free), then you're hitting the Netflix CDN, which will have a node near you. Of course, that node sits on the other side of a backbone provider that your ISP can throttle if they want to extort money from Netflix. That's why both of those solutions fail hard.
I get this, my non-techie wife gets this, my project manager gets this, you seem to get this; why does it seem that nobody else does?
That is exactly the "fast lane" concept, where you are paying Netflix to pay Comcast
No, paying the USPS *at all* to deliver to China is akin to me paying Netflix to pay Comcast. Paying the USPS *more* to deliver faster is akin to... what, exactly, in this case? There's no analogue.
Furthermore, "Postage Due" has no analogue here, and is, as I said previously, therefore irrelevant to this discussion; Comcast is delivering the packets, just more slowly, whereas USPS will simply hold a "Postage Due" package until that postage has been paid, or will return it to the sender. You also failed to point out how COD, which you mentioned previously, is relevant, most probably because you realized it's actually not.
The whole "I pay for my post office box" analogy falls apart when you realize that Comcast is actually delaying packets based on their point of origin, rather than which of their peers passed them along. The analog for that would be USPS delaying packages shipped by you, but only if you shipped them via FedEx using SmartPost (google it if you're not familiar) because, even though FedEx is paying them to carry the package for the last leg of the delivery, because you aren't also paying them. This would land the USPS in hot water, as well, which is why people seem to have a problem when Comcast does it.
UPS' service is irrelevant because it cones down to the recipient redirecting the delivery, something the sender has no control over. Keep trying to muddy the waters, though; you ought to be able to get something to stick eventually, right? And the discussion about pricing? Really? I guess, if you really want me to agree with you on something, I'll give you that; not as though I'm conceding on any point I was actually arguing, though.
Seriously, give this a bit of thought before you start mashing keys.