21–30 of 243 posts
What if ISPs created their own CDNs or someone creates a CDN network behind major ISP providers -- Netflix and YouTube top consumed content seems to be a very good contender for this type of a offering.
> Netflix said it will review SK Broadband's claim, and seek dialogue and explore ways in the meantime to work with SK Broadband to ensure customers are not affected. In other words, they will ship some Open Connect Appliance boxes to the ISP. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ And that’s nice for everyone. Some think it’s unfair that big players like Netflix can do so. But I think them doing that is far far better…
This is basically how the internet works though, isn't it? Your network and my network have parties interested in each others data. If parts of your network are generating traffic that I don't think is reasonable then I can either disable their access or negotiate with you or one of the parties on your network to pay more or I can deny or throttle access to the parties on my network. And a OCA box just makes everythi…
Everyone pays for their internet access, so why should Netflix (or anyone else) suddenly pay for mine? Netflix isn’t pushing data, I’m pulling it. If my ISP is losing money then I guess they better raise their prices, no?
Hmm, I guess ISPs could just drop traffic if they can’t afford it, but maybe if you push a lot of data you could pay more to have the content actually delivered to end users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't go over nearly as well as this.
End users generally don't pay for consuming extra bandwidth, so the injury isn't obvious. SMS spam, though, had a very clear injury when you were charged for the privilege of receiving a message.
> Netflix said it will review SK Broadband's claim, and seek dialogue and explore ways in the meantime to work with SK Broadband to ensure customers are not affected. In other words, they will ship some Open Connect Appliance boxes to the ISP. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ And that’s nice for everyone. Some think it’s unfair that big players like Netflix can do so. But I think them doing that is far far better…
This is basically how the internet works though, isn't it? Your network and my network have parties interested in each others data. If parts of your network are generating traffic that I don't think is reasonable then I can either disable their access or negotiate with you or one of the parties on your network to pay more or I can deny or throttle access to the parties on my network. And a OCA box just makes everythi…
But it's your customers (the end users) generating traffic by watching content on my network (Netflix shows). If your customers can generate more traffic than you can handle, regardless of its a single entity or multiple entities, then that's a contract issue between you and your customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't go over nearly as well as this.
End users generally don't pay for consuming extra bandwidth, so the injury isn't obvious. SMS spam, though, had a very clear injury when you were charged for the privilege of receiving a message.
> South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic It's impressive how this framing has gotten so much acceptance. The content providers are not generating the traffic, the users are, and they are paying their ISPs to be able to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, I guess ISPs could just drop traffic if they can’t afford it, but maybe if you push a lot of data you could pay more to have the content actually delivered to end users.
But that would raise subscription prices. Should every user really pay extra for each subscription based on the data they might use on that subscription?
However, that would leave free content inaccessible, and probably create another wealth divide.