191–200 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Other than the cost of switch ports (which are dirt cheap relatively speaking) they have absolutely 0 overhead beyond power and cooling for the netflix box which again with their user count is a rounding error. I'm not sure if the lawm…
> The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Wouldn't that require them to MITM the Netflix traffic, which I would hope is under TLS?
This problem might also be an interesting use case for Signed HTTP Exchanges. Sign the video files, then push them to the caching server. The caching server then never possesses the private keys for the connection and also cannot modify the content.
Earlier 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…
The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Other than the cost of switch ports (which are dirt cheap relatively speaking) they have absolutely 0 overhead beyond power and cooling for the netflix box which again with their user count is a rounding error. I'm not sure if the lawm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Wouldn't that require them to MITM the Netflix traffic, which I would hope is under TLS?
Does this mean that Netflix has to have a private TLS key in the box? I wonder how the security of these keys is usually maintained. Interesting engineering/cryptography problem. This problem might also be an interesting use case for Signed HTTP Exchanges. Sign the video files, then push them to the caching server. The caching server then never possesses the private keys for the connection and also cannot modify the…
What are you going to achieve by stealing the certificate for edge0.sktelecom.geo.netflixcdn.com from the box you already have access to?
There’s no reason to put *.netflix.com certs on the edge caches.
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.
Otherwise 0Mbit is consistent with the terms of the contract, which is probably exactly what the ISP was going for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
What if the ISP holds a powerful monopoly in some regions? Should we still be laughing?
But the problem is the people that could get affected by their actions until they stop.
> 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's quite common datacenter prices to incl. bandwidth and data. Netflix/youtube cases it's the content providers that server the traffic, so most of it is generated by them. The client requests are tiny in comparison.
/You pay datacenter for bandwith etc.
Person pulls your website
/Person pays cablecompany Z for bandwith
Now you have to pay Cablecompany Z for the data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this mean that Netflix has to have a private TLS key in the box? I wonder how the security of these keys is usually maintained. Interesting engineering/cryptography problem. This problem might also be an interesting use case for Signed HTTP Exchanges. Sign the video files, then push them to the caching server. The caching server then never possesses the private keys for the connection and also cannot modify the…
There’s nothing interesting here. What are you going to achieve by stealing the certificate for edge0.sktelecom.geo.netflixcdn.com from the box you already have access to? There’s no reason to put *.netflix.com certs on the edge caches.