[173329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Tue Jul 22 10:19:15 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:19:05 -0400
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most
part) pricing.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
> >
> > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
> >
>
> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
> landline customers.
>
> Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the
> peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take
> advantage of a captive install base
>
> > Sent via telepathy
> >
> > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
> > > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers
> also
> > > suffer the same performance issue?
>
