Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Owen DeLong owen at
Fri Jul 11 16:50:22 UTC 2014

On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <nanog at> 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
> 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:
> As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of existing, doesn't seem to do what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to .  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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list