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.
