> On Oct 19, 2021, at 08:47 , Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > Vs. an ISP that is causing the problem or trying to run a protection racket > against content providers, I think it wouldn’t be hard for the content > provider to supply appropriate messaging inserted at the front end of > playback to explain the situation to their mutual customers. Instead of the > typical FBI notice, imagine the movie starting with an ad that explains how > the ISP is trying to increase consumer costs by forcing Netflix to > pass along additional fees paid to the ISP to deliver content the customer > has already paid said same ISP to deliver. > > Wouldn't be hard, but doubtful it would be effective. > > Consumers already get the same message on a few TV channels during the annual > carriage dispute-a-palooza, with both sides telling them to call the other > one to complain. It clearly doesn't work.
I don’t think that’s as commonplace in S. Korea as it is here. It appears that the Netflix Verizon notices had the desired effect. > Outside of our sphere, nobody cares about this stuff. They just want their > thing to work. Agreed… The trick is which side is able to convince the users that the other is the one preventing that. Owen > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:37 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org > <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > > > > On Oct 18, 2021, at 14:48 , Jay Hennigan <j...@west.net > > <mailto:j...@west.net>> wrote: > > > > On 10/18/21 07:02, Josh Luthman wrote: > > > >> Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost > >> with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and > >> improve the ISP customer's experience. > > > > Netflix doesn't do those things because it cares about the ISP's costs and > > the ISP customers' experience. > > > > Netflix does these things because Netflix cares about Netflix's costs and > > Netflix's customers' experience. > > Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it does lower the ISP’s costs > and improve the ISP customers’ experience. > > >> It's about time Netflix played > >> chicken with one of these ISPs and stopped offering service (or > >> offered > >> limited service) to the ISPs that try to extort them and other content > >> providers: > > > > Then Netflix would risk losing those customers, especially if the ISP in > > question is a cable company or offers its own video streaming services. > > Vs. an ISP that is causing the problem or trying to run a protection racket > against content providers, I think it wouldn’t be hard for the content > provider to supply appropriate messaging inserted at the front end of > playback to explain the situation to their mutual customers. Instead of the > typical FBI notice, imagine the movie starting with an ad that explains how > the ISP is trying to increase consumer costs by forcing Netflix to > pass along additional fees paid to the ISP to deliver content the customer > has already paid said same ISP to deliver. > > Somehow, I don’t see the ISP doing well against such a PR onslaught. > > > Also, by peering and bringing servers to ISPs, Netflix improves its > > customers' experience and reduces Netflix's costs because they no longer > > need to pay a transit provider to deliver content. > > Where the ISP in question isn’t trying to force them to pay transit costs > within said eyeball network, sure. But in SK’s case, it looks like they’re > trying to force Netflix to pay to reach their eyeballs, even though the > eyeballs in question are already paying them to deliver Netflix (and other) > content. > > >> Sorry, your service provider does not believe in net > >> neutrality and has imposed limitations on your Netflix experience. > > > > They actually did pretty much exactly that with Verizon back in 2014. > > > > https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/netflix-takes-aim-at-verizon-over-slow-data-speeds/ > > > > <https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-entertainment/netflix-takes-aim-at-verizon-over-slow-data-speeds/> > > It appears to have worked out fairly well for them, too. > > Owen >
