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

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> 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.

Wouldn't be hard, but doubtful it would be effective.

Consumers already get the same message on a few TV channels during the
annual carriage dispute-a-palooza, with both sides telling them to call the
other one to complain. It clearly doesn't work.

Outside of our sphere, nobody cares about this stuff. They just want their
thing to work.

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:37 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
wrote:

> > 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