There is no way that this is anything other than a clever bit of PR.
S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
121–130 of 243 posts
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#122> 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.
It really is wild. ISPs have been overselling "unlimited" connections for forever, and being paid for it, but when their customers actually want to use literally the service they paid for, _legally_, it's somehow wrong? I guess that's the thing with Netflix though, it's torrent-like traffic, but legal, so there's no excuse to stop it and they have to come up with something. "oh they're generating explosive traffic th…
>> it's torrent-like traffic, but legal,
There is nothing illegal about torrent traffic any more than any other form of traffic. "It's streaming-like, but legal." "It's VPN-like, but legal." "It's cyptolocker-like, but legal." "It's SSL-like, but legal." "It's Tor-like, but legal."
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#123I think it becomes easier to think about this, if I frame the problem in terms of more tangible objects than bandwidth and data. The public street network is in large parts paid for by taxes, so for everyone access to the network is already payed for. If I now envision a single company blocking all streets with its giant truck fleet, I could completely understand a motion to introduce a new form of toll to be payed b…
It's more of a "false advertising" arrangement than that, though.
If the ISP is selling me 1Gbps access to specific internet content only and I purchased the plan I use based on that knowledge[0] then charging me a toll for things that are outside of that specific internet content would be acceptable. But I didn't. I signed up for service that was limited only by speed, not consumption.
It's a little more evil than that, though. In a consumption/speed model, the two work against each other. I've paid a premium for 1Gps service over 300Mbps which results in me hitting that consumption barrier much faster, so I've paid for the privilege of getting hit with more "tolls". That's a hell of a profitable business model if you can get customers to actually do business with you.
Using a different analogy, the car wash company by ,y father's house offered $3/use car washes or a $30/month plan with hand-towel drying. It's a profitable arrangement for the car wash because most people won't wash their car ten times in a month. My dad, however, owned a company that sold products to automotive manufacturing plants and placed an unusually high value on having a very clean car. He took his car in for a wash every morning and many afternoons. That was the point of buying the $30 plan. For the car wash company to turn around and say "You're using your unlimited service so much that you're negatively affecting access to the car wash for our more profitable customers" would be illegal. That's not to say it doesn't happen all the time in other places, but it also doesn't mean we should allow it.
[0] And it's not OK for that to be buried in paragraph 11 of subparagraph a) in the user agreement as "abuse of network services".
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#124> 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.
A decade ago I was with an ISP who took a stand for "Google should pay us for the priviledge of having our users watch YouTube". I believe I wasn't the only one who decided that's the last straw and moved to an ISP that wasn't rejecting peering based on greed.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#125> 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.
> The content providers are not generating the traffic, the users are
Huh?? I am not serving terabytes of movies from my home connection. Netflix is.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#126It's strange that SK Broadband would go to so much trouble rather than be happy for the profit opportunity that Netflix brings since their content is cacheable. In Nigeria which arguably is more broadband-challenged than Korea, it took me only a few weeks to ship in a Netflix OpenConnect appliance and integrate into the network at a local fiber company where I did some work last year. All we had to do was agree with…
> for the profit opportunity
Sk broadband already got paid from their customers. Netflix is merely incurring more costs for them, which is why they are suing in court in the first place!
Sk broadband would prefer that their customers don't have netflix, but only browse text websites!
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really is wild. ISPs have been overselling "unlimited" connections for forever, and being paid for it, but when their customers actually want to use literally the service they paid for, _legally_, it's somehow wrong? I guess that's the thing with Netflix though, it's torrent-like traffic, but legal, so there's no excuse to stop it and they have to come up with something. "oh they're generating explosive traffic th…
>> it's torrent-like traffic, but legal, There is nothing illegal about torrent traffic any more than any other form of traffic. "It's streaming-like, but legal." "It's VPN-like, but legal." "It's cyptolocker-like, but legal." "It's SSL-like, but legal." "It's Tor-like, but legal."
It’s unreasonable to the bottom line of the ISP because it’s high demand on an oversubscribed network. Torrents used to be a convenient scapegoat because they were more than likely carrying content that was infringing copyright.
I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH, and start saying it violates their TOC because this is a business use. Public uproar would be immense.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I see the logic in what you're saying, the Netflix business moat is already much deeper due to A) billion dollar content deals with major providers and B) billion dollar investments into first party content. Content is king and competitors are already priced out long before minor squabbles over bandwidth.
The disruptor may have an answer for the content problem that Netflix never thought of. It's a competition for attention, after all, and if someone else can provide a more compelling alternative than video for people's attention then that will mess with Netflix' business despite its content deals.
This reminds me of Netflix vs blockbuster.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#129Isn't this what ISP subscribers are supposed to pay for? How big are the operating margins for major ISPs nowadays?
> How big are the operating margins for major ISPs nowadays?
In 2020, KT: 1.18 trillion KRW (1.00bn USD), SKT: 1.34 trillion KRW (1.13bn USD), LG U+: 886 billion KRW (749m USD). Their revenues range from 10 to 25 trillion KRW for the reference.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge from 'Squid Game'
#130The Internet is literally a series of erbium doped tubes, analogous to highway traffic. Videos of cats at high enough bandwidth can melt optical interconnects. For the same reason truckers pay some tax for brutalizing the roads, giant content providers beaming data through these systems must be taxed lest the Internet infrastructure be destroyed and the cost only be burdened by general taxpayers instead of users. (be…
I think in your analogy netflix is more the shop that those truckers are delivering goods to. So if you want to be more accurate, the proposed payments won't be like a tax on truckers (in this analogy the truckers are the users, or maybe ISPs), rather it'll be a tax on supermarkets and shops that are getting the goods.
They are sending the trucks out of their shop…