nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix


From: Sam Silvester <sam.silvester () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:32:43 +0930

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman () meetinghouse net
wrote:

From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who don't
know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years http://www.lariat.net/
)

--------


Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then
refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching. It fails to
provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front doors" and then
blames their downstream networks when in fact they are more than adequate.
It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first questions asked by
every customer who calls us is, "How well do you stream Netflix?") in an
attempt to force them to host their servers for free and to build out
network connections for which it should be footing the bill. (Netflix told
us that, if we wanted to improve streaming performance, we should pay
$10,000 per month for a dedicated link, spanning nearly 1,000 miles, to one
of its "peering points" -- just to serve it and no other streaming
provider.) It then launches misleading PR campaigns against ISPs that dare
to object to this behavior.

--Brett Glass


As I see it, Netflix seem to have provided a reasonable set of options to
provide data to an ISP's customers:

- Over a certain volume, they'll provide caches to be hosted within the
eyeball AS
- Under that volume, you can pick it up via peering IXes
- If you don't peer with them anywhere, you can get it via transit

The complaint here seems to be that Netflix won't build out to
any/every/many smaller locations and/or pay to have their caches hosted.
Appreciate that there may be different views, but I'd say Netflix provide a
reasonable set of options here for the smaller ISP. I'd have thought
factoring in the assorted costs to access Netflix content (building to a
mutual peering IX vs. transit vs. the cost to run a local cache) would fall
into the standard sort of analysis you'd make running an ISP same as when
assessing if it makes sense to hosts a Google or Akamai cache.

Sam


Current thread: