16 ms·

It really is wild. ISPs have been overselling "unlimited" connections for forever, and being paid for it, but when their customers actually want to use literall

It really is wild. ISPs have been overselling "unlimited" connections for forever, and being paid for it, but when their customers actually want to use literally the service they paid for, _legally_, it's somehow wrong? I guess that's the thing with Netflix though, it's torrent-like traffic, but legal, so there's no excuse to stop it and they have to come up with something. "oh they're generating explosive traffic that's not good"

Proven 5y ago
You seem to spend too much time on leftist web sites. First, they aren't being paid for unlimited. Do you think that $39.99 or $199.99 per month can cover the cost of transferring unlimited amount of data to another continent? Of course, it doesn't. Somebody pays $39.99 to download 10 emails, another customer runs BitTorrent 24 by 7 consuming TB's of bandwidth for the same price. Second, they don't want to sell "unlimited" - they could make more money by selling differentiated services.
tw04 5y ago
The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Other than the cost of switch ports (which are dirt cheap relatively speaking) they have absolutely 0 overhead beyond power and cooling for the netflix box which again with their user count is a rounding error. I'm not sure if the lawmakers are ignorant, bought and paid for, or a little of both but it would be refreshing if one of them took 30 seconds and applied a little critical thinking to the situation.
- piaste 5y ago
  > The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Wouldn't that require them to MITM the Netflix traffic, which I would hope is under TLS?
  - namibj 5y ago
    Netflix ships them the box is they ask and sign a contract that they will plug it in and have a security guard it so.
  - isiahl 5y ago
    Here's more information about the program: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ I believe YouTube has the same type of program.
  - merlinscholz 5y ago
    Netflix provides the ISP with the box, afaik the box contains a signed certificate for a Netflix subdomain specific to that box. The "real" Netflix servers direct the customer to that subdomain for the actual content.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    No, Netflix's applications would have users of that ISP use the CDN server which they would locate within SK Telecom's network. Netflix calls it their Open Connect Appliance: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/appliances/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/appliances/ That server would, of course, have a connection to the Internet, they push logs to AWS and get updates from Netflix's authoritative servers in Netflix's other datacenters, but they also serve HTTPS connections to thousands of ISP users; the upstream traffic would be minimal.
  - sumtechguy 5y ago
    My guess Netflix can guide that by handing back different IPs when the end user requests the netflix server name. They can also handle it in application the netflix application can look and see it is in a network that has a box and just goto that ip/host/proxy instead of the generic one. Netflix still controls the keys. No MITM needed.
  - ZetaZero 5y ago
    It's not a caching server run by the ISP. It's a Netflix server embedded in ISP's datacenter/network. No MITM required https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
- mcspiff 5y ago
  You’re assuming the over subscription is only occurring on the transit / peering side and not the last mile. I’m not so sure that’s entirely true.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dzonga 5y ago
  it's SK, so there's a probably an element that the law-makers are paid for. SK is notorious for sending its past presidents to jail for corruption cases. but yeah with that netflix redbox, traffic shouldn't be taxin' the telco's pockets hard.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    Is that actually because SK is corrupt, or because SK is really keen on rectitude in politicians? I think there are more than a few UK politicians who could definitely serve time for corruption, and it's even been occasionally (recently the health secretary) bourne out in court, but it's rarely even a political issue, let alone a criminal one. Also, the less said about SK's neighbors (Japan, for instance) the better.
- No1 5y ago
  There would be a caching server inside SK Telecom's network if SK didn't demand payment from Netflix to provide SK the caching server. "But SK Broadband demanded that Netflix pay network usage fees on top of installing those caches. The streaming service sued the telco, and that case is pending — Netflix told us that it would continue negotiations even as it made its case in court." Alternatively, they would peer with SK Telecom but "SK was demanding large content providers money for peering with them." https://www.medianama.com/2020/08/223-net-neutrality-south-korea/ https://www.medianama.com/2020/08/223-net-neutrality-south-k...
sandworm101 5y ago
>> it's torrent-like traffic, but legal, There is nothing illegal about torrent traffic any more than any other form of traffic. "It's streaming-like, but legal." "It's VPN-like, but legal." "It's cyptolocker-like, but legal." "It's SSL-like, but legal." "It's Tor-like, but legal."
- xattt 5y ago
  It’s unreasonable to the bottom line of the ISP because it’s high demand on an oversubscribed network. Torrents used to be a convenient scapegoat because they were more than likely carrying content that was infringing copyright. I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH, and start saying it violates their TOC because this is a business use. Public uproar would be immense.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    "I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH", "Public uproar would be immense." You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.
    - xattt 5y ago
      I do recognize the cognitive dissonance of my statement. I am just surprised at the restraint that ISPs have shown.
      - EmilioMartinez 5y ago
        It really sounds like a waste of time and money though. What judge would ever side with them? I would fire a lawyer that even proposes that seriously
        pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        Judges implement the law though, so if the contract says "no business use" and this was made clear at the time of purchase -- eg by having business level accounts -- then what can the judge do? It's for the legislators to legislate, not the judges (under English law (UK), common law and equity aside). Actual, I might be wrong here with how contact law is handled ... anyone? A related consideration: when we moved into our terraced house the land was under leasehold and the lease specified 'no business use'. We bought the freehold some time back, but I've often wondered what my position might otherwise have been. Presumably breech of the lease conditions would be a tort against the landlord and so I'd have been fine as long as they didn't sue.
Scaevolus 5y ago
How is Netflix traffic torrent-like? It's large volumes of video data received over HTTPS connections. Users perform negligible upload apart from ACK packets.
- EmilioMartinez 5y ago
  He meant the volume is arguably similar to torrent leeching, although that comparison is a bit outdated; Today it's easy to get high quality torrents that are orders of magnitude more network-intense than Netflix streaming, while in turn today's Netflix is orders of magnitude more intense that old torrenting
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yeah, these companies sell unlimited connections despite not having the capacity to deliver and then have the gall to be offended when we start using what we pay for. Based on their marketing I should be entirely justified if I wanted to saturate their links at maximum speed 24/7. They assume most people won't do it but they deserve absolutely no sympathy when their assumptions are proven wrong. Lashing out at Netflix and bringing them to court for their own failings is such an absurd course of action. They should try upgrading their networks instead so that their service stops sucking.
nix23 5y ago
>torrent-like traffic, but legal Since when is ANY traffic illegal on the Net? Is the idea of an open (for everyone) data "highway" already death in our heads?

Proven 5y ago

You seem to spend too much time on leftist web sites. First, they aren't being paid for unlimited. Do you think that $39.99 or $199.99 per month can cover the cost of transferring unlimited amount of data to another continent? Of course, it doesn't. Somebody pays $39.99 to download 10 emails, another customer runs BitTorrent 24 by 7 consuming TB's of bandwidth for the same price. Second, they don't want to sell "unlimited" - they could make more money by selling differentiated services.

tw04 5y ago

The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Other than the cost of switch ports (which are dirt cheap relatively speaking) they have absolutely 0 overhead beyond power and cooling for the netflix box which again with their user count is a rounding error. I'm not sure if the lawmakers are ignorant, bought and paid for, or a little of both but it would be refreshing if one of them took 30 seconds and applied a little critical thinking to the situation.

piaste 5y ago
> The thing that's most ridiculous about this is that the bandwidth is essentially "free" for SK telecom. They sit a netflix caching server in their network and the traffic never leaves. Wouldn't that require them to MITM the Netflix traffic, which I would hope is under TLS?
- namibj 5y ago
  Netflix ships them the box is they ask and sign a contract that they will plug it in and have a security guard it so.
- isiahl 5y ago
  Here's more information about the program: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ I believe YouTube has the same type of program.
- merlinscholz 5y ago
  Netflix provides the ISP with the box, afaik the box contains a signed certificate for a Netflix subdomain specific to that box. The "real" Netflix servers direct the customer to that subdomain for the actual content.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  No, Netflix's applications would have users of that ISP use the CDN server which they would locate within SK Telecom's network. Netflix calls it their Open Connect Appliance: https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/appliances/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/appliances/ That server would, of course, have a connection to the Internet, they push logs to AWS and get updates from Netflix's authoritative servers in Netflix's other datacenters, but they also serve HTTPS connections to thousands of ISP users; the upstream traffic would be minimal.
- sumtechguy 5y ago
  My guess Netflix can guide that by handing back different IPs when the end user requests the netflix server name. They can also handle it in application the netflix application can look and see it is in a network that has a box and just goto that ip/host/proxy instead of the generic one. Netflix still controls the keys. No MITM needed.
- ZetaZero 5y ago
  It's not a caching server run by the ISP. It's a Netflix server embedded in ISP's datacenter/network. No MITM required https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
mcspiff 5y ago
You’re assuming the over subscription is only occurring on the transit / peering side and not the last mile. I’m not so sure that’s entirely true.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dzonga 5y ago
it's SK, so there's a probably an element that the law-makers are paid for. SK is notorious for sending its past presidents to jail for corruption cases. but yeah with that netflix redbox, traffic shouldn't be taxin' the telco's pockets hard.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Is that actually because SK is corrupt, or because SK is really keen on rectitude in politicians? I think there are more than a few UK politicians who could definitely serve time for corruption, and it's even been occasionally (recently the health secretary) bourne out in court, but it's rarely even a political issue, let alone a criminal one. Also, the less said about SK's neighbors (Japan, for instance) the better.
No1 5y ago
There would be a caching server inside SK Telecom's network if SK didn't demand payment from Netflix to provide SK the caching server. "But SK Broadband demanded that Netflix pay network usage fees on top of installing those caches. The streaming service sued the telco, and that case is pending — Netflix told us that it would continue negotiations even as it made its case in court." Alternatively, they would peer with SK Telecom but "SK was demanding large content providers money for peering with them." https://www.medianama.com/2020/08/223-net-neutrality-south-korea/ https://www.medianama.com/2020/08/223-net-neutrality-south-k...

sandworm101 5y ago

>> it's torrent-like traffic, but legal, There is nothing illegal about torrent traffic any more than any other form of traffic. "It's streaming-like, but legal." "It's VPN-like, but legal." "It's cyptolocker-like, but legal." "It's SSL-like, but legal." "It's Tor-like, but legal."

xattt 5y ago
It’s unreasonable to the bottom line of the ISP because it’s high demand on an oversubscribed network. Torrents used to be a convenient scapegoat because they were more than likely carrying content that was infringing copyright. I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH, and start saying it violates their TOC because this is a business use. Public uproar would be immense.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  "I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH", "Public uproar would be immense." You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.
  - xattt 5y ago
    I do recognize the cognitive dissonance of my statement. I am just surprised at the restraint that ISPs have shown.
    - EmilioMartinez 5y ago
      It really sounds like a waste of time and money though. What judge would ever side with them? I would fire a lawyer that even proposes that seriously
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        Judges implement the law though, so if the contract says "no business use" and this was made clear at the time of purchase -- eg by having business level accounts -- then what can the judge do? It's for the legislators to legislate, not the judges (under English law (UK), common law and equity aside). Actual, I might be wrong here with how contact law is handled ... anyone? A related consideration: when we moved into our terraced house the land was under leasehold and the lease specified 'no business use'. We bought the freehold some time back, but I've often wondered what my position might otherwise have been. Presumably breech of the lease conditions would be a tort against the landlord and so I'd have been fine as long as they didn't sue.

Scaevolus 5y ago

How is Netflix traffic torrent-like? It's large volumes of video data received over HTTPS connections. Users perform negligible upload apart from ACK packets.

EmilioMartinez 5y ago
He meant the volume is arguably similar to torrent leeching, although that comparison is a bit outdated; Today it's easy to get high quality torrents that are orders of magnitude more network-intense than Netflix streaming, while in turn today's Netflix is orders of magnitude more intense that old torrenting

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Yeah, these companies sell unlimited connections despite not having the capacity to deliver and then have the gall to be offended when we start using what we pay for. Based on their marketing I should be entirely justified if I wanted to saturate their links at maximum speed 24/7. They assume most people won't do it but they deserve absolutely no sympathy when their assumptions are proven wrong. Lashing out at Netflix and bringing them to court for their own failings is such an absurd course of action. They should try upgrading their networks instead so that their service stops sucking.

nix23 5y ago

>torrent-like traffic, but legal Since when is ANY traffic illegal on the Net? Is the idea of an open (for everyone) data "highway" already death in our heads?