Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

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