Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

I was speaking specifically of the cases where they are already grouped at a central location such as the 9 in Salt 
Lake City or the 19 in Denver mentioned in the example to which I responded.

I’m pretty sure that in the case where they are already grouped into a less populous exchange point, there is no issue 
of geography, especially, e.g. SLC or DEN as mentioned.

Owen

On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com> wrote:

> Owen,
>
> That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved.  Where possible the smaller operators often do form 
> groups and partnerships, but creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators often means covering more 
> distance than if the operators simply go directly to the tier 1 ISP individually.  There have been many attempts at 
> creating networks that provide that kind of service but the economics are often bad.
>
>  
>
>
> Scott Helms 
> Vice President of Technology 
> ZCorum 
> (678) 507-5000 
> -------------------------------- 
> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms 
> -------------------------------- 
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog () jima us> wrote:
>
> > On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman 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/)
> >
> > While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding their lack of availability to peer, I 
> > happened upon this tidbit from two months ago:
> >
> > http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon-wont-talk-to-small-isps/
> >
> > As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering existing, 
> > https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally 
> > find the link to http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 .  To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not seeing any way the 
> > listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a 
> > bad joke at best.
> >
> > Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current state of residence); the closest IXes 
> > of which I'm aware are in Denver and SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively).  Either of those would be a 
> > hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it.
> >
> > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect 
> > nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN.  Indeed, not everyone can.
> >
> >     Jima
>
> I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS 
> that connects to a larger remote exchange.
>
> For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger 
> exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of 
> that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.
>
> Owen