Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 243 posts

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#41

Post by Jensson »

tgv wrote: post #30
Jensson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Akshually ... that could make a bit of sense. Instead of paying for bandwidth you rarely use to your ISP, you could pay for bandwidth you actually use to the content provider. However, that would leave free content inaccessible, and probably create another wealth divide.

But bandwidth is really cheap and this problem doesn't exist anywhere else. Worst case the ISP can increase their rates by a couple of dollars and improve their cables.

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#42

Post by Proven »

jonnat wrote: post #8

> 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.

[dead]

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#43

Post by wongarsu »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #20
wccrawford wrote: post #15

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.

On a mobile connection you generally have a data cap, and you can switch to a more expensive plan for a higher cap. That's the same thing as paying for bandwidth, just that you are buying in bulk with pre-commitment.

To get significant damage as a single individual, take someone on a traditional satellite connection who can't get some important work done on time because ads put him above his data cap.

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#44

Post by scandinavian »

polkonos wrote: post #38
AegirLeet wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix already has https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ . YouTube probably has something similar.

https://peering.google.com/#/options/google-global-cache

Correct we have netflix, google and akamai caches in our datacenter. A very large chunk of our total traffic goes through these racks.

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#45

Post by wodenokoto »

A lot of commentors here are defending that netflix shouldn't pay data charges.

I don't know how internet prices works for big players, but from the perspective of a little guy, it seems kinda reasonable that netlflix pay, doesn't it?

I mean, why am I paying for bandwidth on AWS? Shouldn't that be paid for by the downloading party?

If I download something from my neighbors computer over a p2p app, then we both still pay for our internet connection, and depending on the contract, we pay by the byte.

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#46

Post by vlan0 »

nisegami wrote: post #25
3pt14159 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"If parts of your network are generating traffic that I don't think is reasonable" 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.

Exactly this. To say that Netflix is generating traffic pointed at SK broadband would not be fair. Those TCP connections are initiated by the end user. Without the user requests there would be no traffic.

So the philosophical question really becomes, what exactly is the end user buying from their ISP?

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#47

Post by apetresc »

simonh wrote: post #40
3pt14159 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a consumer I paid my ISP to carry say 50 Gb/s of data. They took my money on the understanding it's their job to carry that data for me. If I only wanted to browse text I wouldn't be paying for 50Gb/s. What did they think I was going to do?

You have... 50 Gb/s in your area?!

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#48

Post by MereInterest »

xwdv wrote: post #16
fuzzy2 wrote: post #4

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.

> maybe if you push a lot of data

That's leads to a pretty simple conclusion, because Netflix doesn't push any data. I pull data from Netflix. I have already paid my ISP to pull data from anywhere I ask. If my ISP sits down at a negotiating table with Netflix and threatens to disrupt that, they should be laughed out of the room. "Pay me, or else I'm going to break my obligations to an unrelated third party." isn't a move that should have any respect.

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#49

Post by dwighttk »

mrpopo wrote: post #29
jonnat wrote: post #8

> 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.

If anything, customers should be suing ISPs every time they don't get the expected bandwidth. It's the ISP that fails to deliver according to the contract.

I bet there is fine print that says they are delivering exactly according to the contract

Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'

#50

Post by tgv »

Jensson wrote: post #41
tgv wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Akshually ... that could make a bit of sense. Instead of paying for bandwidth you rarely use to your ISP, you could pay for bandwidth you actually use to the content provider. However, that would leave free content inaccessible, and probably create another wealth divide.

But bandwidth is really cheap and this problem doesn't exist anywhere else. Worst case the ISP can increase their rates by a couple of dollars and improve their cables.

No argument from me. I just saw a tiny bit of logic behind another model of balancing the costs. The ISP would still have to upgrade the infrastructure in the end (although my model could lead to e.g. Netflix buying up ISPs).
Post reply on HN