<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/11/21 09:49, Matthew Petach
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEmG1=pzcvFGP-O7+afkpamy5Xe0n5aYv8Dq+SiFDWd5eH_KJA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Going back to the fact that it's not the content
providers "using" </div>
<div>a lot of bandwidth, it's the eyeball customer
*requesting* a lot </div>
<div>of bandwidth, I think the best approach is for the
content providers </div>
<div>to help manage traffic levels by lowering bit rates
towards eyeball </div>
<div>networks that are feeling strained by their users.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Instead of a 4K stream, drop it to 480 or 240; the
eyeball network </div>
<div>should be happy at the reduced strain the resulting
stream puts </div>
<div>on their network. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The content network can even point out they're being a
good </div>
<div>Network Citizen by putting up a brief banner at the top
of the </div>
<div>stream saying "reducing bit rate to relieve stress on
your ISPs</div>
<div>network". That way, the happy customer knows that the </div>
<div>content provider is doing their part to help their ISP
stay </div>
<div>profitable...I mean, doing their part to help the
Internet </div>
<div>run better. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
To be fair, Jane + Thatho don't care about video resolution. All
they will see is that the picture isn't that great, and this creates
an opportunity for a VoD provider who is "more favorable" toward the
network operator, and gets granted full 4K resolution transport
priviledges. If there are any surcharges levied by the network
operator, the VoD provider compensates for those by attracting more
business because, well, they can offer a more superior image
quality.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure about the term, but the "colluding" version for that
would be - if my few IGF days do not fail me - "net neutrality".<br>
<br>
I'm not sure we want to go down that path, either.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEmG1=pzcvFGP-O7+afkpamy5Xe0n5aYv8Dq+SiFDWd5eH_KJA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>The market *is* determining that at the moment...but not
in the </div>
<div>direction people expect. Instead, it's creating a new
market for </div>
<div>intermediaries; imagine you're an eyeball network that
happens </div>
<div>to have peering with SKB, and largely inbound traffic
flows.</div>
<div>Wouldn't it make sense for you to reach out to a player
like </div>
<div>Netflix, and offer to host content cache boxes that
happen to </div>
<div>only answer requests coming from SKB IP space, at a
price </div>
<div>well below what SKB was going to charge the content
provider? </div>
<div>As the eyeball network, you'd see your traffic ratios </div>
<div>balance out as the cache traffic filled your
under-utilized outbound </div>
<div>port capacity, and you'd get a bit of additional revenue
you otherwise </div>
<div>wouldn't get. As the content provider, you're serving
your customers </div>
<div>for a lower price than SKB wants to charge, and without
giving into </div>
<div>SKB's extortion tactics. It's a win-win-lose situation,
in which the </div>
<div>content provider wins, the eyeball network that has a
peering </div>
<div>relationship with SKB wins, and the only loser is SKB,
which </div>
<div>doesn't get the additional revenue it was looking for,
and actually </div>
<div>helps funnel money to a competitor that they otherwise
wouldn't </div>
<div>have gotten.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm pretty sure this is going to start happening more and
more, </div>
<div>as ISPs realize that putting content caches into their IP
space </div>
<div>to serve not only their own customers, but also customers
of </div>
<div>selected peers can be a source of good leverage in the
market. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
In reality, which small mom & pop will have peering with
BigTelco :-)?<br>
<br>
Suffice it to say, Netflix would also need to reconsider whether
they can afford to give OCA's to mom & pop.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>