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

Post by zakki » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:56 AM UTC

vlan0 wrote: post #46

nisegami wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Post by ksec » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 11:58 AM UTC

sodality2 wrote: post #69

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'…

I wouldn't be surprised if the normal bandwidth is able to be handled by existing connections, rather than the boxes with the ISP's. Is netflix super popular in Korea?

Post by Jensson » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 12:00 PM UTC

niemandhier wrote: post #32

I 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…

Post by api » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 12:02 PM UTC

smhost wrote: post #70

IMTDb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are: the advertisers pays for the service users are consuming. The "free with advertising" business model is an efficient version of Advertisers give money to users give money to content provider Where money given to the users == money given to the content provider

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

Post by geocar » Fri, Oct 01, 2021, 12:03 PM UTC

vlan0 wrote: post #57

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 agree, but there still need to be constraints. For instance, if I have a 1Gb symmetrical connection, it's probably still unreasonable for me to expect 1Gb connecting to my buddy's 1Gb 3k miles away.