Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Richard Bennett richard at
Fri Jul 11 21:41:23 UTC 2014

Actually, there are some examples of this, and I'm surprised Mr. Temkin 
didn't point them out. I've been told by rural telcos (RLECs) that 
there's a consolidated mini-exchange in Idaho that was originally built 
with some support from the state in order exchange phone calls within 
Idaho that would otherwise have to be sent to Denver or Seattle for 
interconnect. The RLECs subsequently used the facility for peering 
between their broadband networks, and at some point Netflix, at its own 
expense, installed some of its proprietary servers and paid for a 
circuit to Seattle. The part that excited the RLECs was Netflix footing 
the bill to move its traffic from Seattle to Idaho.

The RLECs told me they're not overjoyed by the cost of moving all that 
traffic 50 miles on their own networks, but it beats moving it all the 
way from Seattle. I thought that was funny since Comcast moves Netflix 
traffic 100 miles from their nearest exchange point in San Jose to my 
home in the East SF Bay. Looking at the traceroute, it all passes 
through SF, but Netflix doesn't have facilities there.


On 7/11/14, 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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

Richard Bennett

More information about the NANOG mailing list