> maybe if you push a lot of data

That's leads to a pretty simple conclusion, because Netflix doesn't push any data. I pull data from Netflix. I have already paid my ISP to pull data from anywhere I ask. If my ISP sits down at a negotiating table with Netflix and threatens to disrupt that, they should be laughed out of the room. "Pay me, or else I'm going to break my obligations to an unrelated third party." isn't a move that should have any respect.

What if the ISP holds a powerful monopoly in some regions? Should we still be laughing?

No, you grab metaphorical pitchforks.

We should be!

But the problem is the people that could get affected by their actions until they stop.

Then Musk and Bezos should be laughing since they'll likely be getting more customers for Starlink and (eventually) Kuiper. Hopefully low earth orbit satellite internet will put an end to ISP monopolies in the US since the government wont.

The ISP could drop or throttle the traffic, assuming that's allowable under the ToS with their customers. But then of course their customers will quit and find an ISP that doesn't throttle/drop.

Regardless, Netflix is not pushing content. The consumer is pulling it.

As a one-off, issues like the Squid-Game aren't so bad, but if it's a chronic problem for the ISP then it's because their model of consumer consumption was wrong.

... and customers could just drop the ISP if they don't deliver the service they want (if there is no ISP monopoly there).

But that would raise subscription prices. Should every user really pay extra for each subscription based on the data they might use on that subscription?

Akshually ... that could make a bit of sense. Instead of paying for bandwidth you rarely use to your ISP, you could pay for bandwidth you actually use to the content provider.

However, that would leave free content inaccessible, and probably create another wealth divide.

But bandwidth is really cheap and this problem doesn't exist anywhere else. Worst case the ISP can increase their rates by a couple of dollars and improve their cables.

No argument from me. I just saw a tiny bit of logic behind another model of balancing the costs. The ISP would still have to upgrade the infrastructure in the end (although my model could lead to e.g. Netflix buying up ISPs).

I’d be ok with then charging a significantly lower for a “limited bandwidth” connection. But I bought an unlimited, so they have no right to complain.

Imagine if the same principles were used in other areas. You iPhone suddenly locking up after using Facebook to much because Facebook wasn’t paying Apple for access to its users.