Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Scott Helms khelms at
Fri Jul 11 17:46:23 UTC 2014


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
(678) 507-5000

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:

> 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.
> Owen

More information about the NANOG mailing list