S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

Matthew Walster matthew at walster.org
Wed Oct 20 19:38:16 UTC 2021

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 19:53, Jared Brown <nanog-isp at mail.com> wrote:

> “When the rules were created 25 years ago I don’t think anyone would have
> envisioned four or five companies would be driving 80% of the traffic on
> the world’s internet. They aren’t making a contribution to the services
> they are being carried on; that doesn’t feel right.”

In the UK, for regular residential geographic telephone numbers, only one
side pays for the call -- the calling party, the one that dials the number.

The user initiates the connection to the CDN. The user is paying for a
level of access to the internet via the BT network, with varying tiers of
speed at particular costs. They are advertised as "Unlimited broadband: With
no data caps or download limits, you can do as much as you like online." on
their website. Many CDNs bring the data closer to the customer, either
embedded within their network, or meeting at various PoPs/IXPs around the

Seems pretty disingenuous to now say the called party has to pay as well,
in stark contrast to decades of precedent with their telephone product,
just because their customers are actually using what they were sold.

All in all, this raises an interesting question. Is British Telecom running
> their networks so hot, that just keeping the lights on requires capacity
> upgrades or are they just looking for freebies?

Taking advantage of a situation and jumping on the bandwagon, some would
say. After decades of chronic underinvestment in UK broadband, they're
finally starting to offer competitive products, and aren't used to having
to pay for it -- though as it happens, it would appear the public purse is
picking up the costs anyway:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211020/43791e05/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list