While thinking about this double play over the weekend, a very interesting chain of thoughts occurred to me. If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? Presumably because they're offering me a helluva deal on the bandwidth. So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? Perhaps because they were smart enough to see how popular NF would become... and thought it would make an excellent stalking horse in their own peering fights? Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*? Cheers, -- jra [1] This is my understanding, though of course I'm not privy. -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. brandon
Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct peering is possible. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
brandon
I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner... $0.02, -a On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct peering is possible.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
brandon
With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers? -P On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not.
I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner...
$0.02, -a
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct peering is possible.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
brandon
Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic. (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.) On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
-P
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not.
I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner...
$0.02, -a
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct peering is possible.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
brandon
...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...:
With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point. Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to $NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!" I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is about PR anyway... -- Hugo Hugo Slabbert cell: 604.617.3133 email: hugo.slabbert@slabnet.com "If kindness doesn't work, try more kindness." Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic.
(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
-P
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not.
I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner...
$0.02, -a
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct peering is possible.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
brandon
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic.
(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)
If this is Comcast’s 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’s eyeballs (eg: Level3, Global Crossings, NTT). While DT and China Telecom may have a huge presence in certain parts of the world — 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 — and the don’t really have to. Netflix has money. Netflix has many pops. They can “just pay”. They can buy from whomever they have to. They can change their codecs however they need. The “little guy” doesn’t have those options, and Netflix’s battle is really for their benefit. -Phil
On 7/23/14, 1:18 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr@latency.net> wrote:
Comcast¹s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don¹t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic.
(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood¹s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don¹t have a citation handy.)
I¹m pretty sure I didn¹t say specifically that DT and China Telecom were options. I probably pointed out the lack of delivery problems prior to using delivery partners like Cogent (such as via Akamai or Limelight) and that delivery alternatives existed. But that¹s in the past - we¹re in a pretty good spot w/Netflix traffic right now, though we continue to add capacity as you¹d expect. Jason
Not to single out Jason, who has demonstrated his worth as one of the “good guys” in the community time after time, however I and somewhat of a skeptic: That Comcast is in a “pretty good spot” for capacity could be punctuated by any number of shifts in traffic, or new sites/services emerging as the next killer app. Where other access providers would increase capacity, Comcast would see money in its eyes, or cite such dated metrics as traffic ratios as a fairness metric, all the while playing the victim with the press. I don’t think I’m overly alarmist in these views; one need only look to the Tata situation (congested for multiple years), which was a textbook case of poor execution and damage control by all involved, as a recent example. Fool me once... On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
On 7/23/14, 1:18 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr@latency.net> wrote:
Comcast¹s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks who don¹t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic.
(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood¹s posts to broadbandreports, unfortunately I don¹t have a citation handy.)
I¹m pretty sure I didn¹t say specifically that DT and China Telecom were options. I probably pointed out the lack of delivery problems prior to using delivery partners like Cogent (such as via Akamai or Limelight) and that delivery alternatives existed. But that¹s in the past - we¹re in a pretty good spot w/Netflix traffic right now, though we continue to add capacity as you¹d expect.
Jason
That answer seem overly simple: Comcast's answer was Comcast and Verizon's answer was Verizon... Seems that is what is occurring for both of these parties. The debate has been over whether this is fair (keeping in mind that Netflix has a standing offer to peer at their own cost to any ISP with sufficient traffic levels). I can't blame these guys for wanting Netflix as a customer. After all, Netflix probably pays their bills on time and generate a lot of traffic which equates to a good revenue stream. --Blake Phil Rosenthal wrote the following on 7/23/2014 12:09 PM:
With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
-P
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not.
I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering partner...
$0.02, -a
On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct peering is possible.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
brandon
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Did they not buy from Level 3 as well?
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Because that's the business Cogent is in? Underprice everybody but the buyer gets what he gets without any real recourse if it isn't good enough. Good money as a bottom feeder as long as you don't make the mistake of selling a dollar for fifty cents. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote:
Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
Just so. 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?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote: [snip]
Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?
Probably noone....... at least not without compromising and first peering with Netflix. It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart, Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow, formed a little club and said "OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit anymore; your customers want our stuff and will consider their internet service DOWN if they can't get it. You are going to pay us for a fast lane to our content now. If you want it, please start sending us your bids, now."
Cheers, -- jra -- -JH
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote: [snip]
Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?
Probably noone....... at least not without compromising and first peering with Netflix.
It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart, Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow, formed a little club and said
"OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit anymore; your customers want our stuff and will consider their internet service DOWN if they can't get it. You are going to pay us for a fast lane to our content now. If you want it, please start sending us your bids, now."
Cheers, -- jra -- -JH
Any discussions among some subsets of those named entities that may or may not have ever occurred may have quickly stumbled across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_in_restraint_of_trade and decided that colluding to form such a cartel might potentially be a Bad Thing(tm), at which point those discussions which may not have indeed ever happened instead adjourned to the bar for much safer forms of discourse. Matt
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 02:27:01 AM Jimmy Hess wrote:
It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart, Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow, formed a little club and said
"OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit anymore; your customers want our stuff and will consider their internet service DOWN if they can't get it. You are going to pay us for a fast lane to our content now. If you want it, please start sending us your bids, now."
I almost wrote this a few weeks ago but decided not to - but I've been saying it for a while now and maybe I'll write it now. The bridge between content owners and their customers is service providers. Those service providers are either wholesale transit providers or consumer service providers. Commercial trends have been moving farther and farther away from, "How much bandwidth do you want to buy?" to, "How many Tv channels, voice minutes and cloud recording can I get?", particularly in much more developed markets. We see evidence on this in the current transit prices being so low that now selling in Gbps as a minimum might be the only way to survive. (very) Slowly but (very) surely, the service provider (wholesale or consumer) is becoming a less visible part of the chain (well, unless we are in the news talking about de- peering or how much grief Netflix are causing us this week), because eyeballs just want their "House of Cards". There really is very little reason why certain major content owners and providers who operate their own IP networks cannot turn around and become full-blown wholesale ISP's (and in some cases, consumer ISP's). As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act together and play nice, before we all get run over by the content owners. They will not hesitate to take us out of the equation the first chance they get. Mark.
There really is very little reason why certain major content owners and providers who operate their own IP networks cannot turn around and become full-blown wholesale ISP's (and in some cases, consumer ISP's).
As a transit provider industry, we need to get our act together and play nice, before we all get run over by the content owners. They will not hesitate to take us out of the equation the first chance they get.
Yes and no… The barrier to Netflix becoming a consumer ISP is very high… Very very high. It costs a lot of money to deploy all that last mile infrastructure, assuming you can get permits, acquire rights-of-way, etc. to even do it. Much of the current consumer ISP infrastructure happens to be owned by content providers that Netflix is competing with. The rest is largely owned by other content providers that are attempting to compete with Netflix _AND_ the other content providers. ($CABLECOs (e.g. Cox, Time Warner, et. al.) in the former case and $TELCOs (e.g. FIOS, uVerse, et. al.) in the latter). In the US, at least, both $CABLECOs and $TELCOs look more like law firms than communications companies if you analyze their business models. They seem to spend most of their time seeking ways to create a regulatory environment that favors them and disadvantages their competition rather than focusing on customer service and innovation to gain better profits. For the most part, their ability to do harm is somewhat limited by the fact that their interests largely run contrary to each other, so you have roughly equal forces fighting for legislation and rulings in roughly opposite directions. Unfortunately, when they agree, it is almost certainly the consumer that loses and loses big. The current situation with Netflix (and other content providers) is one such example. One of the few things they can agree on is that it is easier for them to try and extort money from content producers that compete with them than it is to change their business model to account for the true costs of providing what they promised. One interesting thing about this in my opinion is that the worst consequence if they get their wish (the Slow Lane proposal, as I call it), the worst effect on consumers is an unintended side-effect. It will create an additional set of entry barriers for companies attempting to compete with Netflix and other content providers that have sufficient resources to pay the “exit the slow lane extortion”. So not only is this bad for consumers by raising the cost of their content services by a factor of $ISP_EXTORTION+MARKUP, but it’s also bad for consumers by creating a new barrier to competition in an area of the market that was previously more open. Owen
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:21:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes and no…
The barrier to Netflix becoming a consumer ISP is very high… Very very high. It costs a lot of money to deploy all that last mile infrastructure, assuming you can get permits, acquire rights-of-way, etc. to even do it.
Note I said "...certain major...". For sure, not all content owners have the might or time to become ISP's (whether for themselves or for their customers). But definitely, "certain major" ones do... and we are already seeing bits of that, here and there in the world... I can't predict the future, but if "certain major" content owners/networks find the barriers to entry surmountable, consolidation could close the loop (certainly, if money, skill and effort wasn't my problem, this would be one of my strategies). And if the industry were go this way, I wouldn't expect to see it coming. It would start small. Very small. No big bang announcement or launch... Mark.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:21:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes and no…
The barrier to Netflix becoming a consumer ISP is very high… Very very high. It costs a lot of money to deploy all that last mile infrastructure, assuming you can get permits, acquire rights-of-way, etc. to even do it.
Note I said "...certain major...". For sure, not all content owners have the might or time to become ISP's (whether for themselves or for their customers). But definitely, "certain major" ones do... and we are already seeing bits of that, here and there in the world...
I can't predict the future, but if "certain major" content owners/networks find the barriers to entry surmountable, consolidation could close the loop (certainly, if money, skill and effort wasn't my problem, this would be one of my strategies).
In that case, I would argue that the attempts to freeze Netflix out in a SlowLane extortion scheme are a move by the existing content/ISP conglomerates to do just exactly that, no? If not, then I am completely failing to understand you point. Owen
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:35:32 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
In that case, I would argue that the attempts to freeze Netflix out in a SlowLane extortion scheme are a move by the existing content/ISP conglomerates to do just exactly that, no?
For Netflix, I can't say for sure whether it is a deliberate attempt to "grab" them or not, but yes, the current environment certainly has the makings of what it would take to achieve such an outcome, on purpose or by accident. That said, as successful as Netflix are, I believe there are other content owners out there that are more likely to challenge the traditional ISP model that Netflix ever could. Those are the ones I'm more concerned about. Mark.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:21 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:35:32 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
In that case, I would argue that the attempts to freeze Netflix out in a SlowLane extortion scheme are a move by the existing content/ISP conglomerates to do just exactly that, no?
For Netflix, I can't say for sure whether it is a deliberate attempt to "grab" them or not, but yes, the current environment certainly has the makings of what it would take to achieve such an outcome, on purpose or by accident.
That said, as successful as Netflix are, I believe there are other content owners out there that are more likely to challenge the traditional ISP model that Netflix ever could. Those are the ones I'm more concerned about.
Mark.
You are still misinterpreting my statement, or at least it appears that you are. I am not saying that Netflix is attempting to “grab”. I’m saying that Netflix is the target as the content distributors that are already ISPs attempt to prevent Netflix from capturing more of their content customers. (Netflix is also a distributor, not owner). AT&T, Verizon, et. al. also have content businesses and it appears to me that this battle is an attempt by them to reduce Netflix’ inroads into that business. IOW, the incumbent ISPs seem to be doing exactly what you described as an effort to protect their traditional content businesses. Owen
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 07:10:49 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
You are still misinterpreting my statement, or at least it appears that you are.
The pleasures of e-mail, and tones they do not convey :-)...
I am not saying that Netflix is attempting to “grab”.
Yes, that's what I meant - by "grab them" I meant the traditional ISP's who are also in the content game (U-Verse, Xfinity, FiOS, e.t.c.) are making a deliberate or unconscious play to "grab" Netflix (where grab means either frustrate them or take them out of the equation). So yes, we are on the same page, Owen; the lack of body in e-mail is not either of us justice :-). But, like I said, all this is conjecture on my part. Netflix may not have the might or time to become an ISP, but other networks that play in content (and are currently not known for being ISP's, even though they may run very large global IP networks) might.
(Netflix is also a distributor, not owner).
I'm aware - it's easier for me to say "content owner" to encompass that industry (given some content players own and distribute content, while others simply distribute it), but I know this list is well clued in on the nuances of the terminology. Mark.
We peer with Netflix directly on an exchange, and transit Level3, Cogent, HE & TW. In me experience, when our direct peer is down for whatever reason, Netflix prefers Hurricane Electric no matter what - if the route is there, it takes it - then Cogent, then Level3, then TW. I agree that the Netflix team is responsive and easy to work with, and again in my experience, their network team is extremely interested in making things happen (despite what blogs & hearsay ...) Randal On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
While thinking about this double play over the weekend, a very interesting chain of thoughts occurred to me.
If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*, even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
Presumably because they're offering me a helluva deal on the bandwidth.
So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
Perhaps because they were smart enough to see how popular NF would become... and thought it would make an excellent stalking horse in their own peering fights?
Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?
Cheers, -- jra [1] This is my understanding, though of course I'm not privy. -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:04:31 -0600, randal k said:
I agree that the Netflix team is responsive and easy to work with, and again in my experience, their network team is extremely interested in making things happen (despite what blogs & hearsay ...)
Well, it *is* in their best interests to make sure that every requested packet gets out of Netflix's network (and/or CDN) as fast as possible. :)
participants (15)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Blake Hudson -
Bob Evans -
Brandon Butterworth -
Hugo Slabbert -
Jay Ashworth -
Jimmy Hess -
Livingood, Jason -
Mark Tinka -
Matthew Petach -
Owen DeLong -
Phil Rosenthal -
randal k -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin