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

[Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa>]

On 10/11/21 09:49, Matthew Petach wrote:

> Going back to the fact that it's not the content providers "using"
> a lot of bandwidth, it's the eyeball customer *requesting* a lot
> of bandwidth, I think the best approach is for the content providers
> to help manage traffic levels by lowering bit rates towards eyeball
> networks that are feeling strained by their users.
>
> Instead of a 4K stream, drop it to 480 or 240; the eyeball network
> should be happy at the reduced strain the resulting stream puts
> on their network.
>
> The content network can even point out they're being a good
> Network Citizen by putting up a brief banner at the top of the
> stream saying "reducing bit rate to relieve stress on your ISPs
> network".  That way, the happy customer knows that the
> content provider is doing their part to help their ISP stay
> profitable...I mean, doing their part to help the Internet
> run better.

To be fair, Jane + Thatho don't care about video resolution. All they 
will see is that the picture isn't that great, and this creates an 
opportunity for a VoD provider who is "more favorable" toward the 
network operator, and gets granted full 4K resolution transport 
priviledges. If there are any surcharges levied by the network operator, 
the VoD provider compensates for those by attracting more business 
because, well, they can offer a more superior image quality.

I'm not sure about the term, but the "colluding" version for that would 
be - if my few IGF days do not fail me - "net neutrality".

I'm not sure we want to go down that path, either.


> The market *is* determining that at the moment...but not in the
> direction people expect.  Instead, it's creating a new market for
> intermediaries; imagine you're an eyeball network that happens
> to have peering with SKB, and largely inbound traffic flows.
> Wouldn't it make sense for you to reach out to a player like
> Netflix, and offer to host content cache boxes that happen to
> only answer requests coming from SKB IP space, at a price
> well below what SKB was going to charge the content provider?
> As the eyeball network, you'd see your traffic ratios
> balance out as the cache traffic filled your under-utilized outbound
> port capacity, and you'd get a bit of additional revenue you otherwise
> wouldn't get.  As the content provider, you're serving your customers
> for a lower price than SKB wants to charge, and without giving into
> SKB's extortion tactics.  It's a win-win-lose situation, in which the
> content provider wins, the eyeball network that has a peering
> relationship with SKB wins, and the only loser is SKB, which
> doesn't get the additional revenue it was looking for, and actually
> helps funnel money to a competitor that they otherwise wouldn't
> have gotten.
>
> I'm pretty sure this is going to start happening more and more,
> as ISPs realize that putting content caches into their IP space
> to serve not only their own customers, but also customers of
> selected peers can be a source of good leverage in the market.

In reality, which small mom & pop will have peering with BigTelco :-)?

Suffice it to say, Netflix would also need to reconsider whether they 
can afford to give OCA's to mom & pop.

Mark.