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

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

> On Oct 21, 2021, at 06:30 , Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail) <allenmckinleykitchen () gmail com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ..Allen
>
> > On Oct 20, 2021, at 15:43, Matthew Walster <matthew () walster org> wrote, among other things:
> >
> > Seems pretty disingenuous to now say the called party has to pay as well, in stark contrast to decades of precedent 
> > with their telephone product, just because their customers are actually using what they were sold.
>
> Let me add a (perhaps naïve) perspective:
>
> When speaking of calling party costs, there are two costs in that model: the cost of access to the network (recurring 
> telephone line charges) and the cost, if metered, of making an actual call.
>
> My analogy looks something like this: as the manager of a telecom system where hundreds of clinical dictators were 
> calling at all hours, while I did not pay for any individual incoming calls, it was a necessary business expense for 
> me to have sufficient connection to the network – that is to say, a sufficient number of telephone lines. The cost 
> for dozens of T1 lines was not a small budget item.
>
> So, in one sense, I as a called party did indeed find it necessary to pay substantial fees for the privilege of being 
> called.
>
> And when I instituted toll-free calling, of course I paid significantly more.

Sure… However, sufficient connection is represented by Netflix investing in sufficient PNIs or peering connections
to attach to the eyeball network in question. There is significant expense in that and Netflix has done so. Netflix
is also willing (in most cases) to provide equipment at their expense which can be placed in the eyeball providers’
networks to further reduce the demands on the provider network as well as reducing Netflix costs and improving
the UX for customers that are mutual among the network in question and Netflix.

> I totally agree that this is not a perfect analogy. But I have some sympathy for both parties in this debate.

Close enough on the analogy, but under the circumstances, I fail to understand the need for sympathy for the eyeball
providers.

Owen