Gah, While I'd agree that Netflix shouldn't get free transit, AT&T shouldn't be charging for better access than Netflix can get over other tier 1s. Likewise, for local delivery there's nothing wrong with peering. Besides, when a small ISP starts up they have to buy transit/lay fibre to a major PoP. I'd not see them, or ISPs in other remote areas, charging for "transit". On 5 Aug 2014 10:57, "Marcus Reid" <marcus@blazingdot.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:05PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and Verizon.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/
Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt "Netflix agrees to buy transit from AT&T"?
As several people were kind enough to point out to me off-list, "yes" is the answer to that question.
Thanks Jay. Can you put it in a nutshell just in case others are a little vague on the finer points of these arrangements and their significance in the current content provider / network provider row?
The best thing about journalists is that they're always right (unless they're writing about something you know about, in which case they seem to always screw it up.) I like how in this case the author declares that "This is the new normal."
Marcus