S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

Joshua Pool josh at mikrologic.com
Fri Oct 1 18:24:02 UTC 2021

I think instances where the end ISP is peered directly with Netflix and
demands more money is not valid at all.  That should be normal cost of
doing business to increase capacity as the consumer demand grows.
The topic of interest is instances where the ISP is not directly peered
with Netflix and uses upstream providers and those providers are trying to
make content providers absorb the cost of increasing peering capacity for
services that traverse their infrastructure.
One could make the argument that Tier1's should never be the choke point as
they should be keeping up with the times and be proactively increasing
One could also note that it's 2021 and Cogent and Hurricane Electric are
still not peered.

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:47 AM Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote:

> On 10/1/2021 11:23 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the old days, postal services used to charge the recipient of a
> > letter to deliver the letter. Then stamps were invented, and postal
> > services charged the sender of the letter, and the recipent got free
> > delivery.
> >
> > Now there is free-shipping, and pre-paid return envelopes for DVDs.
> >
> > Of course, the shipping isn't really "Free."  Its built into the cost
> > of goods sold.
> >
> > There is no universal, fixed, unchangable way of allocating business
> > costs.
> >
> True. But when the sender has already paid the stamp to their courier to
> deliver the bits on their leg of the journey, and the recipient has
> already paid a stamp to deliver the bits on their leg of the journey,
> what case does the recipient's courier have to demand additional payment
> from the sender (lest the package get lost)? The stamp has already been
> paid. TWICE! Withholding service until additional payments are made just
> smells like extortion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211001/359817ab/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list