Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Fri Jul 11 02:23:05 UTC 2014

Similar but much smaller scale issue that I'm having trying to deliver our
content to access networks - small amount of traffic, heavily skewed
outbound from our AS but massive amounts of players on these access
networks - yet we're forced to pay said access networks to deliver our
mutual customers for an optimal experience.

So much double dipping.

On Thursday, July 10, 2014, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Miles Fidelman <
> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Jimmy Hess wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Randy Bush wrote:
> >>>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most
> >>> content
> >>> providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
> >>>
> >> Netflix own website indicates otherwise.
> >> https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
> >>
> >> "ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free.
> >> ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet
> >> exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free
> >> storage appliances in or near their network."
> >>
> >>
> >>  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/)
> >
> > --------
> >
> >
> > At 02:42 PM 7/10/2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >
> >  Netflix's only fault is being popular.
> >>
> >
> > Alas, as an ISP who cares about his customers, I must say that this is
> not
> > at all the case.
> >
> > Netflix generates huge amounts of wasteful, redundant traffic and then
> > refuses to allow ISPs to correct this inefficiency via caching.
>
>
> I'm sorry.  You cannot take that sentence...
>
>
> > It fails to provide adequate bandwidth for its traffic to ISPs' "front
> > doors" and then blames their downstream networks when in fact they are
> more
> > than adequate. It exercises market power over ISPs (one of the first
> > questions asked by every customer who calls us is, "How well do you
> stream
> > Netflix?") in an attempt to force them to host their servers for free
>
>
> ...together with this sentence, without hitting a WTF
> moment.
>
> He rants about Netflix generating huge amounts of traffic
> and refusing to allow ISPs to cache it; and then goes on to
> grumble that Netflix is trying to force them to host caching
> boxes.  Does he love caching, or hate caching?  I really
> can't tell.  Netflix is offering to provide you the cache boxes
> *for FREE* so that you can cache the data in your network;
> isn't that exactly what he wanted, in his first sentence?
> Why is it that two sentences later, free Netflix cache boxes
> are suddenly an evil that must be avoided, no matter how
> much Netflix may try to force them on you?
>
> I'm sorry.   I think someone forgot to take their coherency
> meds before writing that paragraph.
>
> If you like caching, you should be happy when someone
> offers to give you caching boxes for FREE.  If you don't
> like caching, you shouldn't bitch about inefficient it is to
> have traffic that isn't being cached.
>
> Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the
> same paragraph is just...dizzying.
>
> Matt
>

-- 

*Trent Farrell*

*Riot Games*

*IP Network Engineer*

E: tfarrell at riotgames.com | IE:  +353 83 446 6809 | US: +1 424 285 9825

Summoner name: Foro