South Korea Broadband Firm Sues Netflix After Traffic Surge from 'Squid Game' (reuters.com) 70
South Korean Internet service provider SK Broadband has sued Netflix to pay for costs from increased network traffic and maintenance work because of a surge of viewers to the U.S. firm's content, an SK spokesperson said on Friday. From a report: The move comes after a Seoul court said Netflix should "reasonably" give something in return to the internet service provider for network usage, and multiple South Korean lawmakers have spoken out against content providers who do not pay for network usage despite generating explosive traffic. Netflix said it will review SK Broadband's claim, and seek dialogue and explore ways in the meantime to work with SK Broadband to ensure customers are not affected. The popularity of the hit series "Squid Game" and other offerings have underscored Netflix's status as the country's second-largest data traffic generator after Google's YouTube, but the two are the only ones to not pay network usage fees, which other content providers such as Amazon, Apple and Facebook are paying, SK said. Netflix's data traffic handled by SK jumped 24 times from May 2018 to 1.2 trillion bits of data processed per second as of September, SK said, riding on the success of several Netflix productions from Korea including "Squid Game" and "D.P."
Netflix is already paying for trafic (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry SK Broadband but Netflix is already paying for its traffic. Just because your business model is based on your customers not using their connection is not anybody else's problem.
Re:Netflix is already paying for trafic (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's what I don't understand about companies wanting to be paid for where the data comes from. I pay my ISP for access to the internet; why does the location that data come from matter? I PAID for bandwidth and possibly a data cap depending on where I live. Bandwidth I can't exceed and the data cap I get charged if I do exceed. I don't see this as Netflix's issue in any way.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's what I don't understand about companies wanting to be paid for where the data comes from.
What's hard to understand?
"You have my money. Give it to me or I'll take it."
Re:Netflix is already paying for trafic (Score:5, Insightful)
"I want money. You have some. Give it to me or I'll bribe a judge to MAKE you give it to me..."
Re: (Score:2)
Give it to me or I'll rely on the court system of my own nation to take it from you because, right or wrong, it's going to side with me.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not hard to understand them *wanting* to be paid twice for the same bandwidth; I'd like to be paid twice for the same job too. But whether there is any basis in Korean law to do that is another matter. Since as you say, the ISP's contractual relationship here is with the customers, not with Netflix, it's hard to see where the legal basis for the complaint might be, but some countries have strange laws, and obviously this ISP's lawyers think they have something to work with.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of companies provisioning assuming a certain level of usage. The high bandwidth is for when you download some videos, files, game updates - high usage but temporary. Web service is fast, it's all great. But then everyone decides to change their behavior, everyone watching binging the same show, or all cutting cable cords and starting streaming. Then the provisioning is all screwed up.
Companies are probably assuming an average usage, not peak usage. So the model needs to change. And unfor
Re: (Score:2)
That's still not Netflix's problem. In fact, the ISP should be thanking them because Netflix is one of the reasons people have Internet access.
Also, don't major ISPs tend to have on-location servers for these kinds of heavy streamers, specifically so they can keep things on their local network? I could be off base on this one, but I'm sure I read somewhere bigger ISPs will have local resources of some major streaming services.
Still, the customer paid for access to the Internet. Where the data comes from is
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fix is to charge by the GB, perhaps in chunks. You get X GB's and if you go over, you pay more. It's how my connection is and why I watch stuff at 720P and ration that. Even the water here is switching to metered connections due to there only being so much water (actually pipes and other infrastructure).
Re: (Score:1)
If you look into it, water for people is very expensive and water for industry is dirt cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, though household water was really cheap here until so much development happened and the reservoirs couldn't keep up.
Re: (Score:1)
yea, but even at these excessive population levels, industries are using most of the water.
And they are getting it cheaper than the population leading to it's abuse.
If industries (esp Nestle's apparently) were restricted, a few jobs would be lost but water usage would (temporarily) drop back to sustainable levels.
Re: (Score:2)
A rational model based on real costs would be bandwidth limits that varied by network load, with different tiers for different levels of priority and guaranteed minimums when congested. A simple per-GB flat rate is a profiteering s
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point and I remember when I first went on the internet, my ISP (actually a dial in BBS with internet access) had 3 levels of quotas with the biggest being in the middle of the night. Ideally any quotas can take time of day into consideration. Still if it is scarce resource, even if only at times, limits is one way to deal with it, rather then charging the sender.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I wish streaming was more like when I had satellite and Tivo. Then download what you want to watch late night, avoiding peak usage.
Re: (Score:2)
I do that on my phone with Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what I don't understand about companies wanting to be paid for where the data comes from. I pay my ISP for access to the internet; why does the location that data come from matter?
As a matter of fact, it does matter.
Imagine that ISP A and B both have 100 customers. Each of them has an unlimited 100 Mbps connection. But on average, they use only 200 GB / month. They have the same usage pattern (peak usage and such) with an important distinction: ISP A customers get all their data from the ISP's server. ISP B customers get all their data from the other side of the planet, and are not interested by local content.
ISP B transit costs are therefore much higher. So either ISP B prices are h
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, it does matter.
Imagine that ISP A and B both have 100 customers. Each of them has an unlimited 100 Mbps connection. But on average, they use only 200 GB / month. They have the same usage pattern (peak usage and such) with an important distinction: ISP A customers get all their data from the ISP's server.
What you describe does not even constitute an ISP.
ISP B transit costs are therefore much higher. So either ISP B prices are higher, or they make less profit. But location of data does matter.
You are saying ISPs pay more for a packet received from a neighboring state than one received from the opposite side of the globe?
ISP B can reduce transit costs by installing a long submarine cable to the other side of the planet and then peer with the content provider. ISP B might be able to charge the content provider for that.
The content provider can also reduce its transit costs by installing a long submarine cable to ISP B and peer with it. The content provider might be able to charge ISP B for that.
But one thing is sure, submarine cables aren't free to deploy and operate. Someone is paying for it.
Eyeball networks don't do this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, it does matter.
Imagine that ISP A and B both have 100 customers. Each of them has an unlimited 100 Mbps connection. But on average, they use only 200 GB / month. They have the same usage pattern (peak usage and such) with an important distinction: ISP A customers get all their data from the ISP's server.
What you describe does not even constitute an ISP.
It's an extreme example but still, imagine someone has Google Fiber as ISP. It's possible end users get a sizeable part of their data from Google itself (Youtube, Google Photo, Gmail, whatever), so Google Fiber doesn't need to pay a lot for transit.
You are saying ISPs pay more for a packet received from a neighboring state than one received from the opposite side of the globe?
One way or another, yes. Either ISPs lay fiber across the globe themselves (which cost money), or they pay someone else (transit) to do it. In both cases, it cost more compared to if all the data remains local.
The other option is that an ISP's customers are so va
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But in Netflix's case, they (the content provider) are a customer of, and paying their money to, ISP C. What is supposed to happen, and what historically *DID* happen before Comcast and Verizon got all rapacious and started to extort Netflix into letting them double-dip, and then spread their BS elsewhere; is that ISP B and ISP C work out their peering and transit between themselves. The customers, whether of ISP B or ISP C never had to concern themselves with that bit before. And they never *shou
Re:Netflix is already paying for trafic (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly.
Netflix even hands out cache boxes for free to ISPs with a reasonable amount of traffic. If they really have terabits per second of Netflix traffic, they should be grateful that they can sell this to their customers at practically zero cost to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming video users: "Netflix shouldn't have to pay based on how much data I receive from them."
Also streaming video users: "Data caps are so unfair! Why should I have to pay more just because I'm using way more bandwidth than my neighbors?"
Re: (Score:3)
To be more exact, data caps are unfair when ISPs charge impossible amounts compared to their own costs. See Canada for extreme examples of overpriced data caps.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you determine the ISP's costs? Transit costs are a pretty small fraction of what it takes to get bits to a residential customer, or to most business premises. Running fiber to a neighborhood or apartment building, then running fiber or coax to individual residences, and then operating and maintaining that, dominates the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Bell's "Fibe 15" plan for example, which costs 55$CAD per month, charges an extra 4.00$CAD per additional GB over the 100 GB monthly quota for that plan, up to a maximum extra of 100$CAD per month for going over the 100GB limit.
So while I don't have exact numbers, I remember reading articles about ISPs being charged pennies per GB, which is why I think ISPs in Canada are just overcharging for monthly quota. Not to mention that a 100GB monthly limit in 2021 is a bad joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISP advertising: Pay $X/month for UNLIMITED broadband Internet access!
Re: (Score:2)
Who is paying is a matter of who's in a dominant position to be paid, and that's usually the guy with the cable (tier 1 networks).
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming video users: "Netflix shouldn't have to pay based on how much data I receive from them."
Of course they do. It's included in their transit costs, which will be higher the more viewers they have.
Also streaming video users: "Data caps are so unfair! Why should I have to pay more just because I'm using way more bandwidth than my neighbors?"
Data caps are not unfair. It's just like with anything. It's only a matter of having a correct price. Can't be $50/month for 500 GB of data and then $1/GB (typical ISP price gouging). It wouldn't be fair to pay $50 for 500 GB and twice as much, or $100, for 550 GB.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's "Sorry Netflix"... (Score:2)
Court has once already ruled in SK's favor, back when Netflix sued SK "whether it had any obligation to pay SK for network usage".
From TFA:
But the Seoul Central District Court ruled against Netflix in June, saying that SK is seen as providing "a service provided at a cost" and it is "reasonable" for Netflix to be "obligated to provide something in return for the service".
Also... Netflix pays for more bandwidth in the U.S.
In the United States, Netflix has been paying a fee to broadband provider Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) for over seven years for faster streaming speeds.
Which is all the reason why Netflix is replying with a call for "dialogue and [to] explore ways in the meantime to work with SK Broadband to ensure customers are not affected" - and not with another lawsuit of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
They might be paying comcast for a direct interconnection, so that they don't have to pay even more to their transit provider to reach comcast customers.
charge for access (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't ISPs charge their customer for the bandwidth they use? The bill goes to the user not the service provider.
Fuck ISPs that want to get paid on both ends.
Re: charge for access (Score:3)
Re: charge for access (Score:5, Informative)
see if they qualify for an on prem Netflix cache
Netflix has already offered that. SK has refused because they don't make money on that either.
Um, it's the users, not the content provider (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well "fix your network" or "Netflix raises subscription costs" both end up coming out of the users pocket. It's just the latter is more targeted towards those that caused the overage in the first place (you break it, you bought it), while the first penalizes those that had nothing to do with the overage (shoplifting).
Re: (Score:2)
Expect everything to be served at 480p. (Score:5, Interesting)
Netflix should soft-geoblock all SK addresses and only allow them to view videos at 480p and no higher until the country is satisfied that bandwidth requirements have been reined in. If they have to pay for bandwidth on the client end, then they have the right to control their own expenses by rationing that bandwidth out.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just block them entirely, and tell their users why. The ones they want as subscribers will give their ISP hell, and the rest expect something for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming most users in South Korea are watching Netflix on their smartphones, I'd say 480p would go unnoticed by most of them. I'd drop that to 360p or even 240p to make sure the users put pressure on their ISPs.
Re: Expect everything to be served at 480p. (Score:2)
140p or lower with 8000hz mono. When videos look like they were rendered on an Atari 2600, they'll get the message.
Re: (Score:2)
480p is quite noticeable even on a smartphone, unless the smartphone is over 10 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say only people with smart phones the size of mini tablets would notice, but then again we are talking about South Korea.
Uh... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, content providers pay large (seriously big dollar!) amounts to buy and/or produce and provide the content.
Users who wish to view that content?
They pay their ISP for that. And a token subscription fee to the content provider service.
The ISP is expected to have enough bandwidth to provide their customers with what their customers want. Or customers change ISP (I have, more than once).
If that's gigabytes of video data - well... that's the ISPs problem and the ISP can increase charges on their customers or whatever.
The provider of the content? Pffft, yeah, nah, bandwidth issues are not their problem at all, ever.
Squid game (Score:2)
I have seen the trailer, it seems like a really dumb show. I cannot believe it is so popular.
Re: (Score:2)
It has a message despite its game show antics think of the credit check apps and people who have crippling debt and it makes some sense.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 to that. I watched the whole thing and it's almost 50/50 game show/social comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Solution (Score:2)
Netflix should surcharge whichever customers want to access it from SKbroadband. I sure as hell would not want my fees to go towards subsidizing those users.
Ignoring Netflix's standard deal (Score:5, Informative)
Netflix doesn't pay for bandwidth for traffic ISP customers use, but on the other side, they always offer to put their content caching appliances in a convenient spot. And SK has refused this option because they don't make money on that either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ignoring Netflix's standard deal (Score:2)
everyone pays for both inbound and outbound traffic in some way
Not necessarily. I could host a server in a Network Exchange and pay nothing for traffic. But only customers who have a transit agreement to reach the IX would be able to reach my server. So it's possible that like 20% of users couldn't access my service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix doesn't pay for bandwidth for traffic ISP customers use, but on the other side, they always offer to put their content caching appliances in a convenient spot. And SK has refused this option because they don't make money on that either.
Let's make a car analogy!
All your roads are private, and owned by many different companies. Netflix is a big convention center. They pay for their access to the roads, and they pay through the nose because they receive a lot of traffic. Netflix customers also pay for their own access, which is lower volume and costs less. It's not magic, if ten cars leave ten driveways, up to ten companies might get paid for one car of throughout, and Netflix will have to pay their own provider for up to ten cars of th
Re: (Score:2)
Way to over complicate something, The customers paid the ISP to deliver their packets, the ISPs are acting in a corrupt manner trying to extort the service provider.
Postman analogy: The postman turns up at your door with a parcel and says Nah Bro, you want this one, you gotta pay me too.
Don't ISPs charge their customer for the bandwidth (Score:1)
Forgotten about what peering, have we? (Score:3)
What will put an end to this kind of sleazy double-billing would be if Netflix simply charged the ISP because of how much of Netflix's transit they're using up.
Clearly it's prohibitively expensive to send internet traffic across national borders and maintain such long network links. If SK Broadband would like it's customers to continue to have unlimited access to quality Western programming, they should be willing to pay for that privilege.
Netflix would do well (Score:2)
WTF (Score:2)
WTF are these ISP idiots smoking???
Re: (Score:2)
They think a stupid judge will force Netflix to pay them for a service that has already been paid for and unfortunately they are probably right.
Clandestine lobbying (Score:2)
Lazy Managers (Score:1)
This is a totally foreseeable outcome of operating an ISP and they should have controls in place to keep the whole thing from crashing. Throttling, data caps, etc. There are many ways to handle this issue.
Instead of rolling up their sleeves and solving the problem they, like all members of the entitled class, expect others to do their work.
This is NOT Netflix's problem to solve.