S.Korea broadband firm sues Netflix after traffic surge

Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail) allenmckinleykitchen at gmail.com
Thu Oct 21 13:30:26 UTC 2021


> On Oct 20, 2021, at 15:43, Matthew Walster <matthew at walster.org> wrote, among other things:
> 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.

Let me add a (perhaps naïve) perspective:

When speaking of calling party costs, there are two costs in that model: the cost of access to the network (recurring telephone line charges) and the cost, if metered, of making an actual call.

My analogy looks something like this: as the manager of a telecom system where hundreds of clinical dictators were calling at all hours, while I did not pay for any individual incoming calls, it was a necessary business expense for me to have sufficient connection to the network – that is to say, a sufficient number of telephone lines. The cost for dozens of T1 lines was not a small budget item.

So, in one sense, I as a called party did indeed find it necessary to pay substantial fees for the privilege of being called.

And when I instituted toll-free calling, of course I paid significantly more.

I totally agree that this is not a perfect analogy. But I have some sympathy for both parties in this debate.



More information about the NANOG mailing list