Originally Posted by bigbarney
And that difference regardless of how minor or major might be a legitimate way to factor in the price for streaming.... but the op won't even entertain this, and that's my point. The OP insists there is no factoring in at all.
THAT is silly.
Because the issue is largely superfluous given a) the fact that most people that have access pay for sufficient bandwidth anyway and would do so anyway regardless if they streamed or not
and b) the cost differential between a non-streaming service level and a streaming service level is so minor it is immaterial for the rare scenarios where someone will make the value judgement you suppose. Where I live, the minimal service level I could pay for is sufficient for streaming. So there is nothing cheaper short of DSL if it still exists, and I wouldn't do that anyway. And remember, I stream very little - i'm a blu ray guy...
By you accounts, you might as well factor in the cost of the house you're sitting in when streaming.
If you want to break the abacus out, take your annual cost of an internet service, (and the two year amortized cost of the router if you must), which are in use 365 days a year, 24 hours a day whether your streaming or taking a crap (in rare instances this is the same thing). Now estimate the number of hours a year you will stream a week/month/year, and calculated the percentage of that annual internet cost. While you're at it, factor in that while streaming, others may be reading email or browsing the web, so you might have to further divide the utilization cost basis.
While you do this, I will be in the bathroom as the Metemucil is kicking in.
I am having a very boring Friday night, as everyone can tell...