|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org From: Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> In-Reply-To: <84FE3FF7-0F05-4566-87BE-F79D8721F403@latency.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 14:00:25 -0400 To: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote: > Comcast=92s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure = networks who don=92t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT = and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing = mechanism to scale up traffic. >=20 > (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood=92s posts to = broadbandreports, unfortunately I don=92t have a citation handy.) If this is Comcast=92s position, it is patently absurd. In 2005, I had = several options available to buy transit from with reasonably good = connectivity to >90% of the Internet=92s eyeballs (eg: Level3, Global = Crossings, NTT). While DT and China Telecom may have a huge presence in = certain parts of the world =97 suggesting using them for general = delivery in the USA. As far as I am concerned, Netflix is sticking their neck out for the = good of the internet here =97 and the don=92t really have to. Netflix = has money. Netflix has many pops. They can =93just pay=94. They can buy = from whomever they have to. They can change their codecs however they = need.=20 The =93little guy=94 doesn=92t have those options, and Netflix=92s = battle is really for their benefit. -Phil=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |