<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">The bottom line problem is that we have allowed vertical integration to allow<div class="">the natural monopoly that exists in last mile infrastructure in most locations to</div><div class="">be leveraged into an effective full-stack monopoly for those same players.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Lack of competition in the last-mile/eyeball space has allowed larger monopoly</div><div class="">eyeball providers to leverage double-payment for the same traffic, extorting</div><div class="">eyeballs that have no alternative to pay them to deliver the content while</div><div class="">simultaneously turning around and extorting the content providers themselves</div><div class="">to be allowed to reach “their customers”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">While monopoly $CABLECO/$DSLTELCO/$GPONPROVIDER can generally</div><div class="">get away making access problematic for a handful of content providers for</div><div class="">short periods of time, no content provider can really absorb the losses associated</div><div class="">with allowing that situation to continue, thus giving the content providers</div><div class="">leverage.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Unfortunately for the content providers, newer laws and lower costs to provide</div><div class="">higher bandwidth are making WISPs a viable competitor in both rural and</div><div class="">metropolitan settings. Consumers are catching on to this and telling the more</div><div class="">traditional ISPs that they now have a choice and the ISPs will have to up their</div><div class="">game to keep their business, so finally progress is being made, which is</div><div class="">removing that leverage from the previously monopoly providers on both</div><div class="">the consumer and the content provider side of that equation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Obviously, ISPs don’t like this and the monopoly ones being not in the</div><div class="">communications business, but rather operating as a law firm with some</div><div class="">switching infrastructure will attempt to use legislation, PUC, and courts</div><div class="">as weapons to try and preserve the status quo.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m hopeful that the Korean courts will see SK’s shakedown for what it is</div><div class="">and toss it in summary judgment (or whatever the Korean equivalent is)</div><div class="">with costs and attorneys’ fees awarded to Netflix. I’m hoping that this will</div><div class="">also send a clear message to other ISPs contemplating such extortive</div><div class="">behavior.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">OTOH, I admit I will watch in amusement if SK’s customers trying to play</div><div class="">Netflix videos are only able to watch in 480p after viewing a brief video</div><div class="">explaining that the video they are about to watch is degraded courtesy</div><div class="">of SK’s business practices (obviously with appropriate details).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 1, 2021, at 11:24 , Joshua Pool via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" class="">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">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.<div class="">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.</div><div class="">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 capacity.</div><div class="">One could also note that it's 2021 and Cogent and Hurricane Electric are still not peered.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:47 AM Blake Hudson <<a href="mailto:blake@ispn.net" class="">blake@ispn.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br class="">
<br class="">
On 10/1/2021 11:23 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
> In the old days, postal services used to charge the recipient of a <br class="">
> letter to deliver the letter. Then stamps were invented, and postal <br class="">
> services charged the sender of the letter, and the recipent got free <br class="">
> delivery.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Now there is free-shipping, and pre-paid return envelopes for DVDs.<br class="">
><br class="">
> Of course, the shipping isn't really "Free." Its built into the cost <br class="">
> of goods sold.<br class="">
><br class="">
> There is no universal, fixed, unchangable way of allocating business <br class="">
> costs.<br class="">
><br class="">
<br class="">
True. But when the sender has already paid the stamp to their courier to <br class="">
deliver the bits on their leg of the journey, and the recipient has <br class="">
already paid a stamp to deliver the bits on their leg of the journey, <br class="">
what case does the recipient's courier have to demand additional payment <br class="">
from the sender (lest the package get lost)? The stamp has already been <br class="">
paid. TWICE! Withholding service until additional payments are made just <br class="">
smells like extortion.<br class="">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>