Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Fri Jul 11 01:35:10 UTC 2014


On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

> Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a
>>> caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do
>>> on a routine basis.
>>>
>> they do.  netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any
>> network
>>
>>
>>
> At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most
> content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
>

Uh, yeah, you've already been corrected on that
score, no need to spank you again for that one...



> Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly
> it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service
> between the two.  But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when
> it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more
> efficient) pipes.


So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct
links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional
50cents/month to cover those additional costs,
right?  And when Time Warner also wants Netflix
to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying
an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs
as well, right?  And another 50cents/month for the
direct connections to Sprint?  And another 50cents/month
for the direct connections to cablevision?  (repeat for
whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to
reference).

At what point do you draw the line and say "wait
a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball
network charges netflix to connect directly to them,
my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of
$7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my
subscription to them."



>
> Miles Fidelman
>

Matt


More information about the NANOG mailing list