[173332] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Tue Jul 22 10:32:17 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:31:05 -0400
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--qu8VUaQHGwkIcN6DBoA26cM39StuaOLAb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>>
>> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>>
http://bgp.he.net/AS6167
> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strat=
egy
> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
> landline customers.
>
> Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without th=
e
> peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to ta=
ke
> advantage of a captive install base
>=20
>> 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 a=
lso
>>> suffer the same performance issue?
>=20
--qu8VUaQHGwkIcN6DBoA26cM39StuaOLAb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlPOdaoACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrLiSQCeOcQp4HqZbUT42Ppe7c8/ZkpV
nDMAn1575YkU9iS2i1w0WaJh9Ytdz1gZ
=/SD7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qu8VUaQHGwkIcN6DBoA26cM39StuaOLAb--
