On 10/1/21 7:45 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
The reason Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, e.t.c., all built their
own global backbones is because of this nonsense that SK Broadband is
trying to pull with Netflix. At some point, the content folk will get
fed up, and go build it themselves. What an opportunity infrastructure
cost itself!
Except that Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon all caved to SK's demands:
"The popularity of the hit series "Squid Game" and other offerings have
underscored Netflix's status as the country's second-largest data
traffic generator after Google's YouTube, but the two are the only ones
to not pay network usage fees, which other content providers such as
Amazon, Apple and Facebook are paying, SK said."
Which has emboldened SK to go after the bigger fish.
One incentive I haven't seen anyone mention is that ISPs don't want to
charge customers what it really costs to provide them access. If you're
the only one in your market that is doing that, no one is going to sign
up because your pricing would be so far out of line with your competition.
Given that issue, I have some sympathy for eyeball networks wanting to
charge content providers for the increased capacity that is needed to
bring in their content. The cost would be passed on to the content
provider's customers (in the same way that corporations don't pay taxes,
their customers do), so the people on that ISP who are creating the
increased demand would be (indirectly) paying for the increased
capacity. That's actually fairer for the other customers who aren't
Netflix subscribers.
The reason that Netflix doesn't want to do it is the same reason that
ISPs don't want to charge their customers what it really costs to
provide them access.