[172865] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Bennett)
Fri Jul 11 17:43:56 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:41:23 -0700
From: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4C4848F8-A4E3-4A21-966C-56F9C793029A@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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
