S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Sun Oct 10 20:13:50 UTC 2021

On 10/10/21 12:57 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 10/10/21 21:33, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply
>> based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's
>> called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses
>> that gamble and lose.
> You arrived at the crux of the issue, quickly, which was the basis of 
> my initial response last week - infrastructure is dying. And we simply 
> aren't motivated enough to figure it out.
> When you spend 25+ years sitting in a chair waiting for the phone to 
> ring or the door to open, for someone to ask, "How much for 5Mbps?", 
> your misfortune will never be your own fault.
Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that after 
about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most cases. 
My ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (DSL) and it serves our needs fine 
and have never run into bandwidth constraints. Maybe if we were 
streaming 4k all of the time it might be different, but frankly the 
difference for 4k isn't all that big. It's sort of like phone screen 
resolution: at some point it just doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211010/b7ab0e10/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list