Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck The Internet Technology

ISPs Want More Money Because So Many People Are Streaming Squid Game (vice.com) 127

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
ISPs around the world claim the unprecedented bandwidth demands Netflix's Squid Game is placing on their broadband networks means they should be getting more money. From a report: But experts say that's not how telecom networks work, suggesting that already cash-flush telecom giants are just positioning themselves for an underserved hand out. The popular South Korean thriller, a not so thinly-veiled critique of late-stage capitalism, tracks a group of indebted people who compete in deadly children's games for cash. According to Netflix, Squid Game is the most popular show in company history, the number one program in 94 countries, and has been watched by 142 million households. ISPs around the world also claim the show's popularity is driving a massive surge in bandwidth consumption, and they want their cut.

In South Korea, Internet service provider SK Broadband sued Netflix earlier this month, claiming that between May and September the ISP's network traffic jumped 24 times to 1.2 trillion bits of data processed every second. This surge is Netflix's fault, the ISP insists, and Netflix should be held financially responsible. In the UK, British Telecom executives have been making similar complaints, insisting that Netflix should be forced to help pay for the surge in network traffic caused by the show. But broadband experts say that's not how broadband networks actually work. "It makes no sense for ISPs to cry victim because they provide a popular service, and are expected to provide it," John Bergmayer, telecom expert at consumer group Public Knowledge told Motherboard. "People subscribe to broadband to do things like stream video, and it's broadband customers who are requesting all these Squid Game streams. They are not somehow imposed on ISPs by Netflix."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs Want More Money Because So Many People Are Streaming Squid Game More

ISPs Want More Money Because So Many People Are Streaming Squid Game

Comments Filter:

  • OMG! Call 9-Wa-Wa!! (Score:3)

    by BeerFartMoron ( 624900 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @01:47PM (#61918361)
    Someone call 9-Wa-Wa!! We need a WAMBULANCE!

  • Broadband shortage (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Suspicious supply chain shortages will soon be joined by suspicious broadband shortages.
    • Suspicious supply chain shortages? Nothing suspicious about it.

    • I'm surprise that the broadband industry hasn't had supply chain problems since they have hardware just like everyone else.

      • They have, it's just not making headlines. We had a storm and power outage in Sept. Only lost power for a few hours, but apparently it blew a part at one of Centurylink's roadside telecom boxes. No internet or landlines for anyone in our area for nearly 3 weeks. All because they were waiting on parts. At least that is what they told us when we pushed why our internet was still out after a week.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 )
          I'm not in a position to be privy to details on how difficult it is to acquire parts lately, but I do work for an ISP. "Roadside telecom boxes" sounds like a pedestal, but I can't imagine the likelihood of that causing that long of an outage unless it happened everywhere for them. I would venture it was one of their local cabinets and likely took out the blades for your area. It would be normal to have some backups, but a whole cabinet going down would be an issue.

          Even before the pandemic, sometimes a sto

  • Hotel (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @01:55PM (#61918383)

    The hotel I run is right next to a very popular stadium/concert venue, causing my hotel to be full all of the time. This causes me to pay for a lot of staff and maintenance. It's not enough that I charge my customers to stay here, the stadium should ALSO be paying me to cover these outrageous costs!

    Next up, power companies wanting a cut of electric car sales, toaster waffle and strudel companies wanting a cut of toaster sales, and pool installation companies wanting a cut of bathing suit sales.

    • The local government would probably not make you pay property taxes to support local schools and roads instead. I bet the telcos would take that deal as well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lazarus ( 2879 )

      re: SK Broadbad. South Korea has one of the lowest broadband costs in the world [numbeo.com]. Maybe they should just raise their prices?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        I don't know their business well enough to say whether they're charging too little or not. The only reason this higher bandwidth usage would be a problem is if they're overselling the lines. However, if an ISP is overselling their lines.. that problem is on them and not Netflix. I know it's common practice to oversell, but it's still their fault.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jjhall ( 555562 )

          This is such an underrated concept! Overselling is absolutely OK, and necessary, for an ISP to manage their resources and expenses. Everybody doesn't use all their bandwidth at once, so it is not cost effective to size the system as if they were. Sometimes there are short spikes that would go over, and that is to be expected on an occasional basis. The problem is when they underestimate the expected bandwidth use, or if something changes (like a new bandwidth-intensive technology such as streaming, or a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Xenx ( 2211586 )

            Some people like to say overselling is the problem, but that isn't it.

            Just in case there is any confusion for you, or anyone else reading, I'm not saying the overselling is a problem on its own. I'm saying that they should be responsible for the outcome when it bites them. It sounds like you're more or less on the same page.

            That said, one thing I've learned that South Korea has different policies for how they handle these situations. I'm not surprised by it, but wasn't aware of this in particular. From what I was reading, domestic companies have to pay for network usage but

    • Netflix wants a cut of ISP fees since they brought the demand for higher capacity connections.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        Except, ISPs don't want to need to provide higher capacity connections. That partially why they're trying to get money from Netflix. From a business standpoint, it's much better to keep charging for the existing infrastructure instead of having to pay to improve it. Even if the higher bandwidth connections bring in more money, it costs more to maintain and takes time to recoup the upgrade costs.

        • Right, but the point is that Netflix's own Internet service costs went up because of so much demand from SKBB's customers. So the SKBB should have to pay Netflix for that.

          Makes just as much sense as SKBB's preposterous lawsuit.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Xenx ( 2211586 )

            Right, but the point is that Netflix's own Internet service costs went up because of so much demand from SKBB's customers. So the SKBB should have to pay Netflix for that.

            Except, that isn't what they said, or a reasonable interpretation of what they said. What they said implies ISPs want customers to pay for higher capacity connections, ostensibly because they would make more money off them that way. I wasn't making a statement about whether Netflix should/shouldn't have to be paying. I was only pointing out the flawed reasoning in basis of their joke.

            Makes just as much sense as SKBB's preposterous lawsuit.

            Well, as far as that is concerned.... not so preposterous by their standards. South Korea law(generalized from articles) requ

  • News at 11.

  • How is it a critique of capitalism? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22, 2021 @01:57PM (#61918389)

    I keep hearing this claim that it's a "blistering critique of capitalism" but I just don't see it. If anything, the games themselves appear to be a critique of communism: everything is run by a central planner, all people are forced into three castes, and everyone must look identical and only the select few are allowed to speak. The only people who are free are the players (capitalists I guess?), who can leave any time they want, but are instead playing the games out of their own free will.

    I'm aware that people keep saying it's a critique of capitalism but I just don't see it. The games are pretty clearly communist.

    • Pacman is a critique of supernatural aggression (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @02:14PM (#61918445)

      I keep hearing this claim that it's a "blistering critique of capitalism" but I just don't see it. If anything, the games themselves appear to be a critique of communism...

      Some of those people are playing because health care is failing their family members, others have to play a life-or-death game because they've been exploited to the point of near-death by their employer, lots more examples, but ... sure... enjoy your superficial thought experiment.

      • Re:Pacman is a critique of supernatural aggression (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday October 23, 2021 @03:22AM (#61919765)
        It's actually more meta than that. Front Man tries to keep the games fair. But everyone - guards and participants - do everything they can to skew things in their favor. It's basically social commentary that no matter how fair you make the system, the participants themselves will ruin it and make it unfair. The reason we can't have nice things is because of ourselves. Under capitalism, the market winners (advantaged players) will try to skew things more in their favor. Under socialism, those with influence in the government (corrupt guards) will try to skew things in ways that favor them.

        Viewers who especially favor one of these systems see the criticism of the system they oppose, but fail to see the criticism of their favored system. That's why OP missed its criticism of capitalism, and you missed its criticism of socialism.

    • The difference from communism is that you don't have to sign up to participate, you're given at least that much choice in Squid game, even if it's a false choice for most of the participants. (because it's more dramatic that way)

    • Is that you, Scrotie Mcboogerballs?

    • I keep hearing this claim that it's a "blistering critique of capitalism" but I just don't see it. If anything, the games themselves appear to be a critique of communism: everything is run by a central planner, all people are forced into three castes, and everyone must look identical and only the select few are allowed to speak. The only people who are free are the players (capitalists I guess?), who can leave any time they want, but are instead playing the games out of their own free will.

      I'm aware that people keep saying it's a critique of capitalism but I just don't see it. The games are pretty clearly communist.

      It's almost as if you didn't watch the final episode.

  • was always a bad idea. Right alongside carrier level IP infrastructure.

    Virtual-for-all doesn't work. There is no grand simulation.

    It's just going to get worse for them, making The Internet the central interchange like this.

  • This is nonsense (Score:3)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @02:01PM (#61918405) Homepage

    It does not matter how popular Squid Game is. There is absolutely no way it increased usage 24x.

    Even if you assume 100% of the current usage is watching Squid Game, and 100% of the previous usage was watching other videos, this means that there are 24 times more people who did not watch anything and are now watching Squid Game, than there are people who watched something else before and switched to Squid Game.

    • Re:This is nonsense (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheGavster ( 774657 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @02:30PM (#61918497) Homepage

      Came here to say this. Running the math, 9, 1 hour episodes is just over 32k seconds of video. The best quote I could find for Netflix' bitrate was around 16Mb/s for action scenes. That's just over 64GB for the series, or about what someone is going to need to download when they buy a new AAA game on Steam.

      This study by Cisco (https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/m/en_us/solutions/service-provider/vni-forecast-highlights/pdf/United_States_2021_Forecast_Highlights.pdf) shows the average US household transferring 237GB per month, so in the month since the show came out that would have been a 27% increase, assuming that it didn't displace some other consumption. Except that it almost certainly did, as "watching TV" was already a thing people were doing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dargaud ( 518470 )
        And subtract from this services like Akamai that cache often requested content (all big data movers use them, I'm sure Netflix does), so that in the proxie's area it may actually be downloaded from the original provider no more than once a day even if thousands of people are streaming it... This complaint indeed does not make sense.
      • Full quality 4K on Netflix can be 40-60Mb/s. I haven't seen this show but I have some direct stream rips of some other Netflix shows showing that as the average. Yes, their DRM even for the full quality 4K that's allegedly platform restricted has been busted wide open and people simply decrypt the stream and put it on pirate sites untouched.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      It does not matter how popular Squid Game is. There is absolutely no way it increased usage 24x.

      Um... It is very possible that peak usage on some networks, or some links on some networks increased 24x above previous due to a particular title.

      Of course the ISPs probably have no idea what is being streamed -- they simply monitor the amount of traffic on their networks and correlate the spikes with recent events, then assume the spikes are caused by the events that happened around the time of the spikes

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by reanjr ( 588767 )

      It might mean customer Netflix usage climbed 24x. That's probably not unreasonable. Just a pointless metric.

  • They can easily make more money by collecting and selling [slashdot.org] more of their subscriber user data.

  • I pay for it. That's right, ME. I PAY FOR THE BANDWIDTH. I PAY FOR THE DATA I CAN TRANSFER PER MONTH. It's /MINE/. I paid for the 1 TB of data per month. I PAID FOR THAT DATA. How I use it, does not entitle you to more money you greedy pigs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      You don't, they buy the bandwidth for a much higher price and then "dillute" it with caches and the fact most users don't actually use the entire shit.
      It's kinda like cocaine.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tyr07 ( 8900565 )
        You're thinking more literal like, did I cover the cost of the entire service they're offering me or not.

        I can't say, I don't work for an ISP anymore, nor was I an executive when I did. What I can say, is they offered me the bandwidth I'm alotted for a price, and it's up to me how I want to use it. If they're banking on me not using it, and I do, and they want to bitch, then they're in breach of the contract or liable for false advertising. They can't have it both ways. Either they offered me a service
      • None of what you said in any way undermines the OP's claim that they own the bandwidth. You are talking about how the ISP goes about providing the bandwidth they sold but that is not the OP's problem: the ISP sold it to a customer and now are required to deliver it regardless of the fact that it might cost them more than they thought because the underestimated how much it might get used.

        They can always put up the prices they charge if they think they need to - but if they do that and others do not then t

  • This is what a technician told me years ago, explaining that they really dnt care if I watch Netflix because it was all inside their network. Is there some truth to that?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by do0b ( 1617057 )
      Indeed, when an ISP reaches a certain volume, they can request caching appliances from netflix to keep popular content inside their network.
      They also offer peering agreements to "bypass" their normal upstream connections.

    • Possibly. It's more efficient to have a bunch of distributed servers near consumers rather than streaming everything from a central location. I believe Netflix has arrangements with some ISPs to have a dedicated server for that ISP's customers. In that case, all the data for those customers would be completely on the private network rather than on the public backbone.

  • How dare they use the bandwidth we claim to be selling them! The cheek, to actually use what you pay for!

  • If they want more money, they can put their prices up. Their customers are the ones driving their inbound traffic; if their current prices aren't enough to cover the costs of doing so then they need to charge more.

    Of course, they can't actually do that, because if they thought they could raise prices even further then they would have already done so and pocketed the extra money. They're just unhappy that they'd have to pocket slightly less money.

    • Big ISPs make 90% margins on Internet service. It is TV they lose the money on, and that's just because the content companies keep squeezing them.

  • So, people are rushing out to get faster internet connections to watch Squid Game, and thus ISPs need huge upgrades immediately to support that right?

    No, they've oversubscribed their network, and are bitching again because they are giving too much money to investors and not re-investing sufficiently in themselves. I have the fastest internet connection available in my area, and it hasn't changed in 10 years. It's on them to keep up with being able to (not even remotely) satisfy the demand of what I'm alread

  • Netflix is already offering ISPs plenty of solutions [netflix.com] to alleviate their bandwidth problem. OCA are easy enough to deploy and name an ISP that doesn't have a presence in a major peering point to setup SFI.
    If the ISPs are trying to get Netflix to pay because the last mile is congested, that's their own problem. They can choke on it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thule ( 9041 )
      I don't think the article is claiming that the last mile is congested. They allude it with "struggling ISP in a developing nation", but that isn't what the article is talking about. They are also confusing what happened in the US with what is happening in South Korea. In the US, Netflix solved their issue with bandwidth by changing their CDN provider and going with direct peering. I don't know what the rules are for peering in SK, but in the US, the peer with the most data going to the other network pays to
  • I want a discount for all the inbound packets they allow through. Really shouldn't be this way. It would be like the utility company charging more for the power to run your Xbox than your refrigerator.

  • Customers pay ISPs so they can access Netflix (Score:3)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @03:32PM (#61918751)
    Netflix isn't supposed to pay ISPs for access to customers. If it worked that way, why am I paying the ISP?

    • the internet is made out of large interconnected networks. there is an agreement between each network on how much data will be transferred from each network, and how much either of them should pay. That even extends to you the end user. You pay based on how much your network will give and take with the ISP. That's what you pay for. They then need to figure out how to negotiate with all the other networks to figure out how to give you the content you want. This means making an educated guess on how much you'

  • Aside from the bandwidth calculations others have done, I work at a small regional ISP and even we have a netflix cache here - I can't imagine the larger ISPs don't as well. Something that popular is not going to affect upstream bandwidth at all, though it could conceivably impact internal networks.

  • The bittorrent protocol is much more economical, once it's inside the ISPs network, its users can transfer the files between each other for free. If everyone gets it from a CDN, the ISP pays after each user.

  • Did you sell more subscriptions than you can handle? Buhuu...

  • Net neutrality (Score:3)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @04:19PM (#61918883) Homepage

    This is the component of net neutrality that no one ever brings up and I think it's 10 times worse than the parts that are. ISP's do not get to be paid by both sides. I pay for my internet and Netflix or anyone else pays for theirs. The fact that LAST time this popped up, many ISP's still got payments from Netflix. FUCK THAT. Net Neutrality should be enforcing that all bandwidth gets paid for once by each end party with ISP's responsible for negotiating deals with backbones. Fuck this pay to access my customers extortion scheme.

  • Let the ISP execs compete in a Squid Game (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Friday October 22, 2021 @04:43PM (#61918981) Homepage
    for their share of the revenue.

  • In Canada, Netflix's middle program is $14.99 a month.

    Somehow Netflix can stream out Squid Game, plus all the other shows they list, for $14.99 (and still afford to create content, etc..)

    Here's the average internet connection is $40/mo (on a quick Google scan, mine is over $50, but hey).

    How is it that Netflix can stream all that content, and do a lot more for just $15 a month, but these ISPs cannot?

    Seems like it's more of a management issue than a 'cost of service' issue. Fire a bunch of managers, bet they'

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by catprog ( 849688 )

      My server has a single connection going out to the internet. (maybe a couple of redundant lines)

      An isp has many connections going out to the homes of it's customers.

  • ISPs want to charge their customers a premium for broadband and then charge the content providers for the traffic the isps customers generate. Idiocy, but a reflection of late 19th century thinking

  • Just make animated ASCII art versions of Squid Game episodes to run on a JavaScript player panel. It worked for Star Wars. [asciimation.co.nz]

    • Let's just ditch the animation and just send ascii art without any ANSI control codes. Maybe one 24x80 page every 5 seconds. For the soundtrack, they have to send 10$ for an audio cassette. Allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kaenneth ( 82978 )

        How about just a text description of the programs?

        • Or how about jacking up the prices for the suscribers using the ISPs doing the mafia shakedowns?

          "You can watch the first three episodes of Shameless for the low low price of $49.99 USD! Additional episodes $19.99 each."

        • 8000hz audio with no video whatsoever.

          It will be just like back in great great grandad's day!

            Maybe sell a wooden "cathedral" radio style streaming device complete with orange neon backlit 'dial' to complete the experience of listening to the now radio serials.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It's not the responsibility for content providers, especially foreign providers to pay for the upgrades of your lousy networks, or your pocketing the money without upgrading your infrastructure.

      How about we geograde you to 140p video/8khz audio, sport? Then you have nothing to complain about.

  • PAY ME TO CARRY IT!

    Well Sparky! Maybe you should be talking to your customers!

    Or maybe not try to cheap out on links for your promised "unlimited" bandwidth!

  • *IF* the ISPs were giving us unlimited monthly bandwidth, then this argument would make some sense. We used to use x GB/month, but now we use some amount greater than x GB/month resulting in more traffic than they can handle.

    But since pretty much every ISP (in the U.S.) switched to monthly data caps, that effectively undercuts this argument. They say that at the current price that we can use up to x GB/month (the cap) . And we are still using less than x GB/month. So traffic has not increased beyond the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MoHaG ( 1002926 )

      If they give unlimited data, the risk of usage patterns changing should be that of the ISP.

      Charging the content provider is unfair - they did have influence about the ISP that the users use.

  • It seems like encouraging users of those ISPs to move to others should quickly stop the demands. "In order to view content in HD, please using a different ISP" or surcharges for users of those ISPs.

    The users pay for access to certain speeds. Charging the other side for it as well is unfair.

Slashdot Top Deals

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Close