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

161–170 of 243 posts

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

#161

Post by Scaevolus »

pocketarc wrote: post #37
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.

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…

How is Netflix traffic torrent-like? It's large volumes of video data received over HTTPS connections. Users perform negligible upload apart from ACK packets.

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

#162

Post by ksec »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #120
ksec wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is why Open Connect Appliance wasn't even in their network in the first place? I mean there are only a few ISP in every country. SK Broadband isn't small either it is something like 25% of market share. If I remember correctly Korean Telecom was 50% and LG was something like 15%. SK Telecom is also the largest MNO is South Korea. And if you are into hardware you may have at least heard of SK Hynix, world'…

> Normally being a Korean conglomerate or Chaebol I would have thought SK must have some subsidiary competing with Netflix. But this doesn't seems to be the case here. Your guess is indeed correct! Two out of three major ISPs in South Korea operate their own OTT services (Wavve and Seezn). LG U+ is an exception and also the first major ISP to join the Open Connect Appliance program for the obvious reason.

Oh Thank You. Now it makes a bit more sense.

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

#163

Post by lostcolony »

xattt wrote: post #127
sandworm101 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

"I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH", "Public uproar would be immense."

You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.

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

#164

Post by lostcolony »

c12 wrote: post #152
dwighttk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn't be surprised. I have a gigabit connection and the contract specifically states that they guarantee a maximum throughput of 400Mbit at peak times.

Guaranteeing a maximum doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.

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

#165

Post by vlan0 »

ineedasername wrote: post #95
zakki wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the physical access.

No. That's not what my contract with my ISP says I'm buying. Besides, physical access alone is useless. Unless you're claiming that ISP's have been selling physical access but giving away usage for free? I don't know if that's the intent of your comment, but again it isn't how my ISP words the contract.

>Unless you're claiming that ISP's have been selling physical access but giving away usage for free?

I don't think zakki is too far off from the truth. Looking at Spectrum's Residential Internet Services Agreement, physical access might be what it boils down to. It's a little shocking they can have terms that make no guarantee to any amount of bandwidth at all, even on "their network". I suspect other large ISPs in the US use the same terminology.

>Subscriber understands and agrees that Spectrum does not guarantee that any particular amount of bandwidth on the Spectrum network or that any speed or throughput of Subscriber's connection to the Spectrum network will be available to Subscriber.

But I think you're correct. Having a physical connection does you no good if it isn't passing packets.

https://www.spectrum.com/policies/residential-internet-servi...

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

#166

Post by xattt »

lostcolony wrote: post #163
xattt wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH", "Public uproar would be immense." You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.

I do recognize the cognitive dissonance of my statement. I am just surprised at the restraint that ISPs have shown.

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

#167

Post by cortesoft »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #125
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.

> 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.

The traffic is generated by a user making a request for the movie. It isn’t like Netflix is just sending movies to users at random.

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

#168

Post by david422 »

lostcolony wrote: post #164
c12 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised. I have a gigabit connection and the contract specifically states that they guarantee a maximum throughput of 400Mbit at peak times.

Guaranteeing a maximum doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.

"We guarantee our performance will be subpar"

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

#169

Post by shadowgovt »

IIUC, there's already a process for this for telecom providers.

1) Ban Netflix IP.

2) Netflix (and customers) complain

3) Come to an arrangement for Netflix to pay a cost

Netflix already had to put together several peering deals in the US when the popularity of their service took off. Why is this scenario any different / what is it about South Korean law that entangles the government in this decision at all?

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

Aerroon wrote: post #103
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.

This seems like a really popular technique in politics. Frame the problem in a way that makes it seem unjust regardless what the wider implications are. Online ads and data vacuuming is often presented in a similar fashion. Your browser goes to the advertiser and requests the ad. The advertiser asks for your data. Your browser sends the data to the advertiser. And the way we frame this is that advertisers are stealin…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN