Mark Tinka wrote:

>> Remember that CDN providers are not neutral at all.
>
> Well, the purpose of a network is whatever its proprietor deems it to
> be, and makes no false advertising about it.

What?

> A private enterprise network that carries a company's internal traffic -
> which may or may not interface with an external network that is
> interested in some or all of that traffic - would, in your eyes, be
> classified as not neutral, because it chooses not to use its network to
> provide global IP Transit?
Unless they directly reach their end users, yes, of course.

The fundamental problem of networking is the last mile problem
that access costs alot more than backbone.

As such, long distance carriers may peer with access providers
only when they are neutral or pay some of there revenue share
to access providers.

> In my mind, the word "transit" refers to carriage between two
> non-homogeneous points. So network A (customer) will talk to network C
> (content) via my network B (transit). If the traffic originates either
> from A or C, BUT terminates/ends inside of B, I do not consider that
> transit.

With your definition, as CDN providers with their own backbone are
not "transit", they can not request access providers (and, ultimately,
end users) peering without paying some as compensation for access
network cost.

Otherwise, CDN providers with their own backbone are free riders
ignoring access costs.

                                                        Masataka Ohta