5 ms·

> Netflix said it will review SK Broadband's claim, and seek dialogue and explore ways in the meantime to work with SK Broadband to ensure customers are not aff

> Netflix said it will review SK Broadband's claim, and seek dialogue and explore ways in the meantime to work with SK Broadband to ensure customers are not affected. In other words, they will ship some Open Connect Appliance boxes to the ISP. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ And that’s nice for everyone. Some think it’s unfair that big players like Netflix can do so. But I think them doing that is far far better than the idea of ISPs charging content providers for the bandwidth. Like other said, the customers of the ISPs are already paying for the bandwidth. Having the ISPs charging Netflix for the bandwidth too, that’s no bueno.

3pt14159 5y ago
This is basically how the internet works though, isn't it? Your network and my network have parties interested in each others data. If parts of your network are generating traffic that I don't think is reasonable then I can either disable their access or negotiate with you or one of the parties on your network to pay more or I can deny or throttle access to the parties on my network. And a OCA box just makes everything better for everyone where it's possible to employ them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nisegami 5y ago
  "If parts of your network are generating traffic that I don't think is reasonable" But it's your customers (the end users) generating traffic by watching content on my network (Netflix shows). If your customers can generate more traffic than you can handle, regardless of its a single entity or multiple entities, then that's a contract issue between you and your customers.
  - vlan0 5y ago
    Exactly this. To say that Netflix is generating traffic pointed at SK broadband would not be fair. Those TCP connections are initiated by the end user. Without the user requests there would be no traffic. So the philosophical question really becomes, what exactly is the end user buying from their ISP?
    - zakki 5y ago
      the physical access.
      - smiley1437 5y ago
        > the physical access. Wouldn't that also include the bandwidth? Meaning, if the customer is already paying for the bandwidth they will consume, why wouldn't that cover bandwidth usage of Netflix content?
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        No. That's not what my contract with my ISP says I'm buying. Besides, physical access alone is useless. Unless you're claiming that ISP's have been selling physical access but giving away usage for free? I don't know if that's the intent of your comment, but again it isn't how my ISP words the contract.
        vlan0 5y ago
        >Unless you're claiming that ISP's have been selling physical access but giving away usage for free? I don't think zakki is too far off from the truth. Looking at Spectrum's Residential Internet Services Agreement, physical access might be what it boils down to. It's a little shocking they can have terms that make no guarantee to any amount of bandwidth at all, even on "their network". I suspect other large ISPs in the US use the same terminology. >Subscriber understands and agrees that Spectrum does not guarantee that any particular amount of bandwidth on the Spectrum network or that any speed or throughput of Subscriber's connection to the Spectrum network will be available to Subscriber. But I think you're correct. Having a physical connection does you no good if it isn't passing packets. https://www.spectrum.com/policies/residential-internet-services-agreement https://www.spectrum.com/policies/residential-internet-servi...
    - dr-detroit 5y ago
      They're gangsters demanding their cut. The ISPs were created with tax money and set up as a public trust then stolen away. At least in my state.
- simonh 5y ago
  As a consumer I paid my ISP to carry say 50 Gb/s of data. They took my money on the understanding it's their job to carry that data for me. If I only wanted to browse text I wouldn't be paying for 50Gb/s. What did they think I was going to do?
  - apetresc 5y ago
    You have... 50 Gb/s in your area?!
    - simonh 5y ago
      Oops, Mb/s.
  - ev1 5y ago
    They'd deliver text speeds then tell you to stop complaining because where else can you go while laughing.
wccrawford 5y ago
I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't go over nearly as well as this.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  End users generally don't pay for consuming extra bandwidth, so the injury isn't obvious. SMS spam, though, had a very clear injury when you were charged for the privilege of receiving a message.
  - TheJoeMan 5y ago
    Ah but in a backwards twist my ISP now has a 1Tb per month data cap. You’d think this was huge, but I wanted to download all my games to a new Xbox…
    - 14 5y ago
      That is a failure of Xbox in my opinion. Games are 100gb these days. Massive. My monthly bandwidth is line 400gb. That is pretty common in Canada. We can’t afford to download all the games, again. There should be a local transfer of games done over wifi. It should be made easy.
      - Arrath 5y ago
        Uh, there is?[1] [1]https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console/enable-network-game-transfer-xbox-one https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console...
  - sc11 5y ago
    On mobile it's very common to have data caps, so end users do pay for the bandwidth used by ads indirectly.
    - drKarl 5y ago
ksec 5y ago
My question is why Open Connect Appliance wasn't even in their network in the first place? I mean there are only a few ISP in every country. SK Broadband isn't small either it is something like 25% of market share. If I remember correctly Korean Telecom was 50% and LG was something like 15%. SK Telecom is also the largest MNO is South Korea. And if you are into hardware you may have at least heard of SK Hynix, world's third largest NAND manufacture. Normally being a Korean conglomerate or Chaebol I would have thought SK must have some subsidiary competing with Netflix. But this doesn't seems to be the case here.
- sodality2 5y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the normal bandwidth is able to be handled by existing connections, rather than the boxes with the ISP's. Is netflix super popular in Korea?
  - ksec 5y ago
    >Is netflix super popular in Korea? Netflix made a few big splash with content made specifically for South Korean. Or K-Drama. But I dont have any data to judge whether they are super popular or not.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > Is netflix super popular in Korea? Yes, from the article: > 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
    - sodality2 5y ago
      Previously to Squid Game, I mean.
      - lifthrasiir 5y ago
        That too is true. As of March 2021, Netflix was the only over-the-top service that has reached 10M subscribers in SK (seconded by Wavve, currently operated by SKT and but only had ~4M subscribers at that time).

3pt14159 5y ago

This is basically how the internet works though, isn't it? Your network and my network have parties interested in each others data. If parts of your network are generating traffic that I don't think is reasonable then I can either disable their access or negotiate with you or one of the parties on your network to pay more or I can deny or throttle access to the parties on my network. And a OCA box just makes everything better for everyone where it's possible to employ them.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nisegami 5y ago
"If parts of your network are generating traffic that I don't think is reasonable" But it's your customers (the end users) generating traffic by watching content on my network (Netflix shows). If your customers can generate more traffic than you can handle, regardless of its a single entity or multiple entities, then that's a contract issue between you and your customers.
- vlan0 5y ago
  Exactly this. To say that Netflix is generating traffic pointed at SK broadband would not be fair. Those TCP connections are initiated by the end user. Without the user requests there would be no traffic. So the philosophical question really becomes, what exactly is the end user buying from their ISP?
  - zakki 5y ago
    the physical access.
    - smiley1437 5y ago
      > the physical access. Wouldn't that also include the bandwidth? Meaning, if the customer is already paying for the bandwidth they will consume, why wouldn't that cover bandwidth usage of Netflix content?
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      No. That's not what my contract with my ISP says I'm buying. Besides, physical access alone is useless. Unless you're claiming that ISP's have been selling physical access but giving away usage for free? I don't know if that's the intent of your comment, but again it isn't how my ISP words the contract.
      - vlan0 5y ago
        >Unless you're claiming that ISP's have been selling physical access but giving away usage for free? I don't think zakki is too far off from the truth. Looking at Spectrum's Residential Internet Services Agreement, physical access might be what it boils down to. It's a little shocking they can have terms that make no guarantee to any amount of bandwidth at all, even on "their network". I suspect other large ISPs in the US use the same terminology. >Subscriber understands and agrees that Spectrum does not guarantee that any particular amount of bandwidth on the Spectrum network or that any speed or throughput of Subscriber's connection to the Spectrum network will be available to Subscriber. But I think you're correct. Having a physical connection does you no good if it isn't passing packets. https://www.spectrum.com/policies/residential-internet-services-agreement https://www.spectrum.com/policies/residential-internet-servi...
  - dr-detroit 5y ago
    They're gangsters demanding their cut. The ISPs were created with tax money and set up as a public trust then stolen away. At least in my state.
simonh 5y ago
As a consumer I paid my ISP to carry say 50 Gb/s of data. They took my money on the understanding it's their job to carry that data for me. If I only wanted to browse text I wouldn't be paying for 50Gb/s. What did they think I was going to do?
- apetresc 5y ago
  You have... 50 Gb/s in your area?!
  - simonh 5y ago
    Oops, Mb/s.
- ev1 5y ago
  They'd deliver text speeds then tell you to stop complaining because where else can you go while laughing.

wccrawford 5y ago

I just realized: By this same logic, end-users should be paid by advertisers for the bandwidth they were forced to consume for their ads. I bet that wouldn't go over nearly as well as this.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
End users generally don't pay for consuming extra bandwidth, so the injury isn't obvious. SMS spam, though, had a very clear injury when you were charged for the privilege of receiving a message.
- TheJoeMan 5y ago
  Ah but in a backwards twist my ISP now has a 1Tb per month data cap. You’d think this was huge, but I wanted to download all my games to a new Xbox…
  - 14 5y ago
    That is a failure of Xbox in my opinion. Games are 100gb these days. Massive. My monthly bandwidth is line 400gb. That is pretty common in Canada. We can’t afford to download all the games, again. There should be a local transfer of games done over wifi. It should be made easy.
    - Arrath 5y ago
      Uh, there is?[1] [1]https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console/enable-network-game-transfer-xbox-one https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/hardware-network/console...
- sc11 5y ago
  On mobile it's very common to have data caps, so end users do pay for the bandwidth used by ads indirectly.
  - drKarl 5y ago

ksec 5y ago

My question is why Open Connect Appliance wasn't even in their network in the first place? I mean there are only a few ISP in every country. SK Broadband isn't small either it is something like 25% of market share. If I remember correctly Korean Telecom was 50% and LG was something like 15%. SK Telecom is also the largest MNO is South Korea. And if you are into hardware you may have at least heard of SK Hynix, world's third largest NAND manufacture. Normally being a Korean conglomerate or Chaebol I would have thought SK must have some subsidiary competing with Netflix. But this doesn't seems to be the case here.

sodality2 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the normal bandwidth is able to be handled by existing connections, rather than the boxes with the ISP's. Is netflix super popular in Korea?
- ksec 5y ago
  >Is netflix super popular in Korea? Netflix made a few big splash with content made specifically for South Korean. Or K-Drama. But I dont have any data to judge whether they are super popular or not.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > Is netflix super popular in Korea? Yes, from the article: > 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
  - sodality2 5y ago
    Previously to Squid Game, I mean.
    - lifthrasiir 5y ago
      That too is true. As of March 2021, Netflix was the only over-the-top service that has reached 10M subscribers in SK (seconded by Wavve, currently operated by SKT and but only had ~4M subscribers at that time).