Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Oct 18, 2021, at 14:48 , Jay Hennigan <jay () west net> wrote:
>
> On 10/18/21 07:02, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> >    Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost
> >    with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and
> >    improve the ISP customer's experience.
>
> Netflix doesn't do those things because it cares about the ISP's costs and the ISP customers' experience.
>
> Netflix does these things because Netflix cares about Netflix's costs and Netflix's customers' experience.

Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it does lower the ISP’s costs and improve the ISP customers’ experience.

> >    It's about time Netflix played
> >    chicken with one of these ISPs and stopped offering service  (or
> >    offered
> >    limited service) to the ISPs that try to extort them and other content
> >    providers:
>
> Then Netflix would risk losing those customers, especially if the ISP in question is a cable company or offers its 
> own video streaming services.

Vs. an ISP that is causing the problem or trying to run a protection racket against content providers, I think it 
wouldn’t be hard for the content
provider to supply appropriate messaging inserted at the front end of playback to explain the situation to their mutual 
customers. Instead of the
typical FBI notice, imagine the movie starting with an ad that explains how the ISP is trying to increase consumer 
costs by forcing Netflix to
pass along additional fees paid to the ISP to deliver content the customer has already paid said same ISP to deliver.

Somehow, I don’t see the ISP doing well against such a PR onslaught.

> Also, by peering and bringing servers to ISPs, Netflix improves its customers' experience and reduces Netflix's costs 
> because they no longer need to pay a transit provider to deliver content.

Where the ISP in question isn’t trying to force them to pay transit costs within said eyeball network, sure. But in 
SK’s case, it looks like they’re trying to force Netflix to pay to reach their eyeballs, even though the eyeballs in 
question are already paying them to deliver Netflix (and other) content.

> >    Sorry, your service provider does not believe in net
> >    neutrality and has imposed limitations on your Netflix experience.
>
> They actually did pretty much exactly that with Verizon back in 2014.
>
> https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/netflix-takes-aim-at-verizon-over-slow-data-speeds/

It appears to have worked out fairly well for them, too.

Owen