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

151–160 of 243 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

vlan0 wrote: post #94
geocar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you and your buddy use the same ISP, no it is not unreasonable.

Right, that's likely doable on the same ISP, even 3k miles away. It does highlight a philosophical question I raised in another comment. What exactly are consumers purchasing from last mile ISPs? Is it 1Gb to anywhere on the providers network? 1Gb to the nearest CDN/Internet exchange? I don't think there is a good answer for this. But it's important to think about when we talk about ISPs reaching their hand towards l…

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by c12 »

dwighttk wrote: post #49
mrpopo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

#153

Post by c12 »

thedougd wrote: post #97
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.

Time to bring back ISP shaming. Netflix would notify Verizon users in the app that Verizon's slow peering was degrading their watch experience. https://bgr.com/general/netflix-vs-verizon-network/

Wasn't this what fast.com was created for?

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

#154

Post by ZetaZero »

piaste wrote: post #142
tw04 wrote: post #101

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?

It's not a caching server run by the ISP. It's a Netflix server embedded in ISP's datacenter/network. No MITM required

https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/

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

#155

Post by spicybright »

api wrote: post #77
smhost wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are: the advertisers pays for the service users are consuming and the users pay for the service the advertisers are consuming.

It's called currency for a reason... it likes to flow.

This actually blew my mind, lol

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

#156

Post by jimmydorry »

wodenokoto wrote: post #45

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…

You pay for bandwidth on AWS. In the Netflix scenario, the ISPs sitting between your service and your customers would be demanding that you pay them for using their bandwidth.

The only difference between you and Netflix is that they are AWS with all of the interconnect and overhead costs, while you get to pay a third party to abstract all of that complexity away for what is essentially a management fee.

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

#157

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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's not about what is fair, it's about maximizing profit. And if a company can earn money from both consumers and producers, why not? This is what unrestricted capitalism is like.

IIRC there were some companies that got a slap on the wrist (it was something like Uber or a food delivery company) for charging both consumers and producers a commission, which is illegal (I don't remember the legalese term).

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

#158

Post by jimmydorry »

xoa wrote: post #115
dwighttk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're certainly right, and the specific term here for what consumers should, but generally don't, have is a "Service Level Agreement" (SLA). This is pretty standard for business links and nearly anything at all at the datacenter level, if you ever subscribe to a whole line at a colo you'll probably see that. SLAs tend to spell out not just maximum sustained bandwidth, but 90/95/97/99%, uptime, what if any burst band…

I absolutely agree, however national or even regional level transparency reports are bullshit. It needs to be at the exchange / node level. The same ISP will have different levels of service between cities and suburbs.

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

#160

Post by viceroyalbean »

chii wrote: post #131
wodenokoto wrote: post #45

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…

> why am I paying for bandwidth on AWS? Shouldn't that be paid for by the downloading party? you're paying for it because it costs money to provide bandwidth on both ends, and AWS is just shunting the cost onto you itemized. Netflix, believe it or not, also charges for the bandwidth it uses, but it hides it unitemized into the subscription fee, and in sufficient quantities that when averaged across all it's subscribe…

Somewhat unrelated, but your point about costs coming out breakeven when averaged over all users made me realize that this move by SK makes as much sense as Netflix suing an ISP because their customers consume a disproportionately large amount of Netflix' bandwidth. The ISP's role in facilitating the usage of Netflix bandwidth would be the same as Netflix faciliting use of SK's bandwidth in this case.
Post reply on HN