Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>]

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