> 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
> 

Reply via email to