Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
> On Oct 10, 2021, at 13:21 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 10/10/21 22:13, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that after >> about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most cases. My >> ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (DSL) and it serves our needs fine and have >> never run into bandwidth constraints. Maybe if we were streaming 4k all of >> the time it might be different, but frankly the difference for 4k isn't all >> that big. It's sort of like phone screen resolution: at some point it just >> doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype. >> > > The ISP looking to charge BigContent for increased link saturation isn't > looking at the individual 100Mbps links they have sold to their downstream > customers. > > They are looking at the aggregate Gbps or Tbps of traffic that BigContent is > seeking to deliver across their network, for "no $$". Which is the kind of ignorant view of the situation that creates this problem in the first place. It’s not for “no $$”, it’s for all the $$ they got from all those 100Mbps links that they are delivering those Tbps of traffic to. If the aggregate $$ they are collecting is insufficient, then they have priced their service incorrectly and should either re-evaluate, or go bankrupt and sell to someone that knows how to run a business. Owen
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
> On Oct 10, 2021, at 13:18 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 10/10/21 22:10, Geoff Huston wrote: > >> I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base >> problem is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't >> want to charge their customers what it really costs to provide them with >> high speed access, nor do they want to fund additional back-end capacity in >> their network without some form of offset revenue stream. > > I think ISP's do want to charge their customers what it actually costs to > provide them with a service, but they can't because many ISP's business > models are based purely on undercutting their nearest competitor. Then that’s a flawed business model and one of them will eventually get lucky in each market place and race prices once they are a monopoly. > I might be naive and hopeful to think that operators will have a blood > handshake to set prices where customers can't wag the tail. Such collusion is usually the basis of antitrust laws and ill-advised at best. Owen
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
>> (in the same way that corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do),... > > > Many a company pays corporate tax, which is separate from the income tax they > pay for compensation to their staff. > > Of course, YMMV depending on where you live. That’s irrelevant to what he is saying. What he’s saying (and he’s 100% correct) is that any tax a corporation pays is collected from their customers one way or another. A corporation has no other source of income with which to pay its taxes beyond those revenues collected from customers. Of course I should probably expect this from someone who thinks IPv4 shortages can be avoided by rationing IPv4 addresses. Owen
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
> On Oct 10, 2021, at 12:08 , Doug Barton wrote: > > 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. Only if your competition is somehow getting funding from another source (e.g. extorting content providers). As such, I’d guess that this situation won’t untangle itself any time soon because markets which lack transparency and/or have (mostly) ignorant customers tend to be dysfunctional in exactly these kinds of ways. > 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. An interesting argument, but I don’t entirely buy it. I’m a high consumer of bandwidth. I end up paying an extra surcharge each month to get data without a cap. I think that’s perfectly fair. OTOH, I think it’s not particularly fair if after I pay for that cap removal, my ISP turns around and extorts even more money from the companies I’m paying for content in order to effectively make my circuit even more expensive. > 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. Sounds like the electrical deregulation plan that Enron wrote for California and then criticized while they gamed the system for fun and profit. Owen
Re: DNS pulling BGP routes?
> On Oct 7, 2021, at 06:49 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > William Herrin wrote: > This is quite common to tie an underlying service announcement to BGP announcements in an Anycast or similar environment. >>> >>> Yes, that is a commonly seen mistake with anycast. >> You don't know what you're talking about. > > I do but you don't. > >> If your anycast node stops >> receiving updated data and you can't reach any of the other nodes to >> check whether they're online, 99 times out of 100 this means a local >> failure of some sort. > > Yes. In case of DNS, if expiration period of a zone is passed > without successful check of the current most zone version, > unicast or anycast name servers stop responding requests for > the zone. > > But, it has nothing specifically to do with anycast. As there > are other name servers with different IP addresses, there is > no reason to withdraw routes. So? WRONG. First, assuming that there are non-anycast name servers assumes facts not in evidence. Second, if you are a participant in an anycast name server network, there are good reasons to withdraw your announcement of that prefix in order to avoid users having to wait for timeouts (which in some cases might be even worse than serving stale data). >> You withdraw the node's announcement so that you >> don't serve bad data to the end user. > > That will only introduce new failure modes of mismatches between > server availability and server reachability and is a bad idea. No, if the server is available, it should announce the anycast prefix. If it i snot available, it should withdraw it. That’s the best way to make anycast work and it’s what virtually every anycast DNS server network does. If the server is unavailable, but doesn’t withdraw, then you have the failure mode of the server being reachable, but unavailable and it becomes a black hole for traffic that should otherwise flow to other available anycast nodes. >> That's what happened here - > > Yes, facebook did wrong thing to actively withdraw routes. No, facebook did the right thing for 99+% of situations that would trigger this withdraw. The problem was that they withdrew EVERY server when the failure wasn’t local instead of having some way to recognize the failure for what it was, global in nature and continue serving DNS. >> Simply >> turning themselves off, instead of withdrawing the routes, would >> result in suboptimal performance. > > This time, facebook is saying that they could not reach their > name servers even though the servers were perfectly working. Because their servers couldn’t verify that they were working and thus thought that they had stale data. Thus, the servers were “perfectly working” with stale data and the safe thing to do if you can’t confirm that your reason for believing you have stale data is erroneous, is to stop serving what you have. If you’re not going to serve what you have, then you shouldn’t announce the anycast prefix, either. > How much performance, do you think, facebook enjoyed? A lot > less than "suboptimal", I'm afraid. As noted, this was that 1% failure that isn’t anticipated. The behavior of the system was correct for 99% of failures and the number of years facebook has operated without a significant or noticeable DNS outage is testament to that fact. > > > And 99 times out of 100, not doing > > one or the other would cause rather than prevent an outage. > > That is a commonly seen misconception wrongly assuming that > server routes were withdrawn if and only if the server is > unavailable. The servers withdrew their routes because the servers had no ability to verify that they were serving valid data. If you can’t verify your data is valid, it’s better (in most cases) to not serve the data you have. If you’re not going to serve, the best thing to do is withdraw the anycast prefix that claims you are a server for the data. > But, the reality is that it is impossible to correctly > recognize server is unavailable or to correctly withdraw > routes only when server is unavailable. Yes… So you go with something that works 99% of the time and you get an event like this in that 1% of cases where the failure in question was not one of the failure modes that was previously anticipated. I’m betting that facebook is quickly figuring out changes that will mitigate this type of failure in the future and their DNS will likely stay up until the next 1 in 100 (or will it be 1 in 10,000 this time?) events pops up that surprised them again. That’s the nature of operations. Owen
RE: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On Sunday, 10 October, 2021 14:21, Mark Tinka wrote: >They are looking at the aggregate Gbps or Tbps of traffic that >BigContent is seeking to deliver across their network, for "no $$". This is blatantly incorrect. The bits were payed for by the requestor. BigContent does not "send bits" to non-requestors. The Internet is Point-to-Point, not a Broadcast medium. If the seller (the network operator) cannot provide the service which they have sold, they should be imprisoned for the remainder of their natural lives at hard labour. This sort of behaviour by the network operator is a Criminal Activity called FRAUD (based on Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Material Fact) and is, in fact, a Criminal Conspiracy. -- You can tell a politician is lying because it's lips are moving. The only good politician is a dead politician.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
Netflix has programs for which many ISPs - even smaller are able to build a cache system. This may help the ISP who filed suit here - That being said - Our Consultancy has helped a number of smaller ISPs build using the Open Connect options - however for many they cannot justify the want from Netflix to have the minimum of 5Gbps of peak Netflix traffic let alone the 1.2Gbps of inbound traffic daily during the 12 hour update windows. A move like this may help wake up Netflix to making these options a bit nicer for the smaller boys Glenn
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
> On 11 Oct 2021, at 7:18 am, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 10/10/21 22:10, Geoff Huston wrote: > >> I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base >> problem is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't >> want to charge their customers what it really costs to provide them with >> high speed access, nor do they want to fund additional back-end capacity in >> their network without some form of offset revenue stream. > > I think ISP's do want to charge their customers what it actually costs to > provide them with a service, but they can't because many ISP's business > models are based purely on undercutting their nearest competitor. > > I might be naive and hopeful to think that operators will have a blood > handshake to set prices where customers can't wag the tail. > In many environments, the words we use to describe this form of price setting are generally prefixed by the adjective “illegal” :-) Geoff
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
* do...@dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) [Sun 10 Oct 2021, 23:44 CEST]: First, I'm not saying "should." I'm saying that given the market economics, having the content providers who use "a lot" of bandwidth do something to offset those costs to the ISPs might be the best/least bad option. Whether "something" is a local cache box, peering, money, or is something I think that the market should determine. Sounds like you think SK should be paying Netflix for bringing their content all the way from the US to the Korean peninsula. That's some expensive wet cable being used there. -- Niels.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
- On Oct 10, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: Hi, > And for the record, not only have I never worked for an ISP, I was > saying all the way back in the late '90s that the oversubscription > business model (which almost always includes punishing users who > actually use their bandwidth) is inherently unfair to the customers, and > when the Internet becomes more pervasive in daily life will come back to > bite them in the ass. I was laughed at for being hopelessly naive, not > understanding how the bandwidth business works, etc. I have worked for ISPs. And I remember the late 90s. Bandwidth was $35/mbit on average, at least for the outfit where I was. Consumers paid roughly $40 for their DSL connections, which at the time went up to 2Mbit depending on the age of the copper and distance to the DSLAM. Consumer connections were oversubscribed, on average, 1:35 to 1:50. B2B connections got a better deal, 1:10 to 1:15. It was simply not feasible to offer 1:1 bandwidth and still make a profit, unless you're charging fees the average consumer cannot afford. Especially considering that the average user doesn't even need or use that much bandwidth. It's a recurring discussion. People demand more bandwidth without considering whether or not they need it. End-users, business subs, and host-owners at large enterprises where I worked. The last ones are the funniest: entire racks using no more than 100mbit/s and hostowners are demanding an upgrade from 10G to 25G bEcaUse LaTenCy. The last consumer ISP I worked at had a very small subset of users that really needed bandwidth: the "download dudes" who were 24/7 leeching news servers, and the inevitable gamers that complained about the latency due to the links being full as a result of said leechers. In that case, a carefully implemented shaping of tcp/119 did the trick. Thanks, Sabri
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
[some snipping below] Also just to be clear, these are my own opinions, not necessarily shared by any current or former employers. On 10/10/21 12:31 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 10/10/21 21:08, Doug Barton wrote 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... But eyeballs are already paying you a monthly fee for 100Mbps of service (for example). So they should pay a surcharge, over-and-above that, that determines how they can use that 100Mbps? Seems overly odd, to me. Yes, I get that. But as you pointed out here and in other comments, the ISP market is based entirely on undercutting competitors (with a lot of gambling thrown in, as Matthew pointed out). (in the same way that corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do),... Many a company pays corporate tax, which is separate from the income tax they pay for compensation to their staff. Of course, YMMV depending on where you live. I didn't say income tax. Corporate taxes are considered an expense by the corporation paying them. Like all other expenses, they are factored into the cost of goods/services sold. 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. So what rat hole does this lead us down into? People who want to stream Youtube should pay their ISP for that? People who want to spend unmentionable hours on Linkedin should be their ISP for that? People who want to gawk over Samsung's web site because they love it so much, should pay their ISP for that? First, I'm not saying "should." I'm saying that given the market economics, having the content providers who use "a lot" of bandwidth do something to offset those costs to the ISPs might be the best/least bad option. Whether "something" is a local cache box, peering, money, or is something I think that the market should determine. And to answer Matthew's question, I don't know what "a lot" is. I think the market should determine that as well. And for the record, not only have I never worked for an ISP, I was saying all the way back in the late '90s that the oversubscription business model (which almost always includes punishing users who actually use their bandwidth) is inherently unfair to the customers, and when the Internet becomes more pervasive in daily life will come back to bite them in the ass. I was laughed at for being hopelessly naive, not understanding how the bandwidth business works, etc.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On 10/10/21 22:13, Michael Thomas wrote: Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that after about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most cases. My ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (DSL) and it serves our needs fine and have never run into bandwidth constraints. Maybe if we were streaming 4k all of the time it might be different, but frankly the difference for 4k isn't all that big. It's sort of like phone screen resolution: at some point it just doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype. The ISP looking to charge BigContent for increased link saturation isn't looking at the individual 100Mbps links they have sold to their downstream customers. They are looking at the aggregate Gbps or Tbps of traffic that BigContent is seeking to deliver across their network, for "no $$". Mark.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On 10/10/21 22:10, Geoff Huston wrote: I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base problem is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't want to charge their customers what it really costs to provide them with high speed access, nor do they want to fund additional back-end capacity in their network without some form of offset revenue stream. I think ISP's do want to charge their customers what it actually costs to provide them with a service, but they can't because many ISP's business models are based purely on undercutting their nearest competitor. I might be naive and hopeful to think that operators will have a blood handshake to set prices where customers can't wag the tail. Mark.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On 10/10/21 12:57 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 10/10/21 21:33, Matthew Petach wrote: If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses that gamble and lose. You arrived at the crux of the issue, quickly, which was the basis of my initial response last week - infrastructure is dying. And we simply aren't motivated enough to figure it out. When you spend 25+ years sitting in a chair waiting for the phone to ring or the door to open, for someone to ask, "How much for 5Mbps?", your misfortune will never be your own fault. Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that after about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most cases. My ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (DSL) and it serves our needs fine and have never run into bandwidth constraints. Maybe if we were streaming 4k all of the time it might be different, but frankly the difference for 4k isn't all that big. It's sort of like phone screen resolution: at some point it just doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype. Mike
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
> On 11 Oct 2021, at 6:33 am, Matthew Petach wrote: > > […] Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon all caved to SK's demands: > > I will note that my $previous_employer was a top-10 web content provider > that did *not* pay SK Broadband. Not all the content providers caved > to SKB. > The situation in South Korea between content providers and broadband providers has a long history. Back in early 2012 Korea Telecom implemented a block on Samsung’s “smart TV” models because they had a streaming high def content service that KT claimed that was saturating their broadband network. According to KT, Samsung opted to take a "very negative response" to KT's actions. Samsung obtained a court injunction to lift KT's block on their TVs and an associated court order for KT and Samsung to enter into arbitration. At the same time Samsung filed a lawsuit against KT. In due course the temperature of the dispute abated and all the parties backed down. KT discontinued its block, and Samsung dropped its lawsuit. However, there was evidently some residual bad feeling here as Samsung expressed their desire for the national regulator to convey a "strict warning" to KT over its actions. You have to wonder if the major difference some nine years later is that while Samsung is a Korean business, Netflix is a ‘foreign’ entity, and perhaps the broadband ISPs feel that the Korean legal actions in this round will have a different outcome and favour the local ISP enterprises over the foreign streamer. I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base problem is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't want to charge their customers what it really costs to provide them with high speed access, nor do they want to fund additional back-end capacity in their network without some form of offset revenue stream. Geoff
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On 10/10/21 21:33, Matthew Petach wrote: If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses that gamble and lose. You arrived at the crux of the issue, quickly, which was the basis of my initial response last week - infrastructure is dying. And we simply aren't motivated enough to figure it out. When you spend 25+ years sitting in a chair waiting for the phone to ring or the door to open, for someone to ask, "How much for 5Mbps?", your misfortune will never be your own fault. Mark.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:12 PM Doug Barton wrote: > 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: > I will note that my $previous_employer was a top-10 web content provider that did *not* pay SK Broadband. Not all the content providers caved to SKB. > 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. > That's a problem with your (collective) business model, then. If you sell something for less than it costs to make, it's called a loss-leader; and while you can do it for a little while, you'll get very little sympathy if people take advantage of it to drain your coffers. If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses that gamble and lose. > 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. > That argument makes no sense whatsoever. What if instead of a single content provider, the extra traffic was generated by 10,000 small websites, each adding 1/10,000th of the volume of a single content provider? The cumulative impact on the eyeball network to handle the increased traffic is the same whether it comes from one content provider or from 10,000 separate smaller websites. Why should it be OK to go after the one content provider, but not go after the 10,000 smaller websites? At one point does your argument break down, and can you defend why that break point makes sense? Why is it OK to go after one, two, three, four content providers, but not to go after every website that is contributing to the increased traffic volume the eyeball network is handling? Seriously. Make your case. At what point do you draw that line, and say "we can charge content sites if there's less than 5 of them, but not if there's more than 10,000 of them?" How do you defend the choice of where you drew that arbitrary line? 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. > ISPs who don't charge enough to cover their costs are gambling, and hoping they get lucky. When they don't get lucky, and they lose their bet, they shouldn't get to make up for it by trying to strong-arm others to make up the difference. if you decide that "sender pays" is a fair model for the Internet to follow, then it needs to be applied equally, not just cherry-picking a few companies to extort, but leaving everyone else alone. As it stands, what you're arguing for is completely arbitrary and unfair. Matt
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
On 10/10/21 21:08, Doug Barton wrote: 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. Prior to the popularity of "House Of Cards", Netflix would have bent over and taken it without any lube. Heck, they signed away plenty of rights around the world to several networks for "House Of Cards", purely because they didn't know how well their own in-house production would succeed. Fast-forward, it's 2021 now. Other players in BigContent that haven't yet found their leverage, will do. 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. Isn't this the curse of a service people consider to be a basic utility for life to occur? Unlike water and power, nearly anyone can start an ISP, and further feed the race to the bottom. 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... But eyeballs are already paying you a monthly fee for 100Mbps of service (for example). So they should pay a surcharge, over-and-above that, that determines how they can use that 100Mbps? Seems overly odd, to me. (in the same way that corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do),... Many a company pays corporate tax, which is separate from the income tax they pay for compensation to their staff. Of course, YMMV depending on where you live. 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. So what rat hole does this lead us down into? People who want to stream Youtube should pay their ISP for that? People who want to spend unmentionable hours on Linkedin should be their ISP for that? People who want to gawk over Samsung's web site because they love it so much, should pay their ISP for that? Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe that's the model that is needed. After all, when we go to a rave, the entry fee is just the entry fee. You still need to fork out more cash to actually buy drinks, food or engage in some kind of entertainment that may be taking place inside that walled garden you paid a cover charge to be a part of. I don't know... Mark.
Re: S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge
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.
