> On Oct 12, 2021, at 09:04 , Jared Brown <nanog-...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> 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.
> For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true.
>
> For this to work, I am really trying hard to ignore inconvenient facts like:
>
> "South Korea’s SK Telecom (SKT) has reported operating revenues of
> KRW4.818 trillion (USD4.2 billion) for the quarter ended 30 June 2021,
> up 4.7% year-on-year, with it saying that the increase was ‘due to
> continued solid growth trends in all business areas’.
>
> SKT’s operating income in Q2 2021 totalled KRW397 billion, up 10.8% on
> an annualised basis..."
>
>
> https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2021/08/12/sk-telecom-reports-revenue-increase-in-2q21-as-5g-subscriber-numbers-rise/
>
> Nevertheless, let's go with the hypothesis that service is provided below
> cost.
>
> Providing access is mostly fixed costs, as there are very few consumables in
> running a network.
>
> IP transit costs aren't an issue, since Netflix will do settlement free
> peering.
>
> This leaves the internal network of SK Telecom as the problem and cost
> center.
>
> There would have been no marginal cost if SK Telecom's own network was
> capable of handling the traffic
> of its customers.
>
> So basically SK Telecom is mad at Netflix for forcing equipment upgrades
> faster than budgeted.
>
> Should Netflix have to pay for SK Telecom sucking at traffic planning and
> budgeting?
Apparently SK Telecom thinks so.
Not surprising since they certainly aren’t the first eyeball ISP to put forth
this notion.
Owen
