Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
mfidelman at meetinghouse.net
Mon Jul 14 13:46:33 UTC 2014
Jay Ashworth wrote:
[ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's
behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert
post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS
service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ]
Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my
time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's
behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too.
But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say?
Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to:
1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single
network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and
Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate
2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple
networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix
buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit
networks in the middle.
3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit
networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that
wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network.
4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys
5. Verizon and Comcast are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with
Netflix making a visible stink about it.
6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the
little guys "you pay." And yes, they're making it a little easier by
providing the CDN boxes.
7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and
regulations about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
More information about the NANOG