Last I checked, it is eyeball network responsibility to adequately provision their transit capacity to support the demand of their customers, or find alternate solutions for the customers to be able to receive the service they are paying for (internet bandwidth to/from the sites they choose to visit). Anything outside of that like direct peering is icing on the cake and a way to serve lower latency or costs to the networks in question. This is all a smoke screen from the major eyeball players to cloud the fact that they intentionally do *not* adequately provision transit bandwidth to serve their customers what they are paying for. -Blake On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
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.
Hi Miles,
Netflix is not your ISP. Verizon is. You pay Verizon to carry your packets to and from everybody else on the Internet, not just those folks they feel like connecting to.
On the flip side, Netflix is NOT demanding payment from Verizon the way TV stations demand payment from cable and satellite companies. Netflix and their carriers have repeatedly offered to freely connect at multiple locations where Verizon already has facilities.
One of these companies is demanding a second payment to provide the service they've already been paid for. One is not. The one demanding double-payment is unambiguously at fault.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?