Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
jared at puck.Nether.net
Fri Jul 11 18:40:38 UTC 2014
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:20:21PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
> Verizon Policy Blog wrote:
> >There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge of
> >our network (the border router) used by the transit providers chosen by
> >Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network.
> In what world does Netflix choose a transit provider into someone else's
> network? I'm pretty sure that Verizon chooses who it peers with and how it
> announces BGP prefixes. This means that Verizon is largely in control of
> traffic engineering at its borders. If one of those transit providers is
> congested, this is something Verizon, as a responsible network operator, is
> surely aware of and has the capability to resolve. This is difficult, if
> even possible, for a source network operator to work around.
I think what this highlights is the possible risks and troubles
with the different markets at play.
Consumer vs "Enterprise" vs SMB vs "wholesale". These are discrete market
segments and when there is a company that participates in some of them those
growth curves look vastly different from each other. If the 80% rule is
right I hear brandied about (80% of traffic is some form of video either
amazon, youtube, netflix, hulu, redbox, etc..) that's different from an
office network network pattern. I think we all know this, but not
everyone I know translates this into a business case or practice.
for me personally, the larger question is: If Verizon and Netflix
have done a commercial deal (as reported in the press) what is holding
up the installation of those ports? Of course, I'm not party to the
discussions between the companies but do see it as interesting the dueling
in the press/blogosphere.
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
More information about the NANOG