nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman () meetinghouse net>
Jay Ashworth wrote: [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] Jay, Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say?
Certainly. Just full disclosure: I'm as motivated to reply to this as I am *because* I already have a hard-on for VZN. :-)
Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand.
Correct.
2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in the middle. 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should pay.
There's argument about whether VZN's claims are reasonable, and I tend to fall on the "they are not, even though I don't like VZN anyway" side; this thread was as much a sanity check as anything.
5. Verizon and Comcast are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with Netflix making a visible stink about it.
Yup.
6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little guys "you pay." And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the CDN boxes.
Fair amount easier I would say, but I don't think we have enough empirical evidence either way, at least not in this thread.
7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff.
I hope that it doesn't come to that. Regulation is horrible. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix, (continued)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 16)
- RE: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Frank Bulk (iname.com) (Jul 13)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 16)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Michael Thomas (Jul 16)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Baldur Norddahl (Jul 17)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Nick Hilliard (Jul 13)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Jay Ashworth (Jul 13)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Miles Fidelman (Jul 14)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Jared Mauch (Jul 14)
- provisioning (was: endless pissing about vz and netflux) Randy Bush (Jul 14)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Jay Ashworth (Jul 14)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Matthew Petach (Jul 14)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Owen DeLong (Jul 16)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix mcfbbqroast . (Jul 16)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Rogan Schlassa (Jul 16)
- RE: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix John van Oppen (Jul 14)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix joel jaeggli (Jul 14)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Mike Hale (Jul 13)
- Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix Tom Hill (Jul 13)