On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a
caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do on a routine basis.
they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any network
At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm....
Uh, yeah, you've already been corrected on that score, no need to spank you again for that one...
Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more efficient) pipes.
So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference). At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them."
Miles Fidelman
Matt