Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Dave Temkin dave at
Fri Jul 11 21:57:58 UTC 2014

Hi Richard,

You may be confusing Idaho for Portland, but either way we are constantly
adding new POPs and Portland is a great example of us bearing the cost that
ISPs were bearing before to haul traffic from Seattle or San Jose. I would
consider that a great success.

Regarding Comcast in SF, they do not interconnect with other
networks there, otherwise we'd probably hand off in the city. The
interconnect locations are not always our choice.

On Friday, July 11, 2014, Richard Bennett <richard at> wrote:

> 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.
> Richard
> 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