Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of its freight.
If your ISP isn't tall enough for Netflix, Akamai has a lower barrier of entry. Have you let Akamai give you a local cache? why or why not?
Akamai refused to do so when we approached them. The Akamai rep was rather rude and dismissive about it; we were too small to be worthy of their attention. It's important to note that the growth of rural ISPs is limited by population. Even if we did not have rapacious cable and telephone monopolies to compete with, our size is naturally limited by the number of possible customers. Each of those customers is every bit as valuable as an urban customer, but Netflix won't even give us the SAME amount per customer it gives Comcast, much less more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of line because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing to allow caching. If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and lower costs due to caching at the ISP. --Brett Glass
If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty.
I call hogwash. ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to the Internet. If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, not threaten to cut off a portion of the Internet that "cost too much". A point that seems to be missed in this whole discussion. It was your choice to provide services in a rural area, not Netflix, Akamai or the like. If your business model is flawed, then don't expect somebody else to step in and fix it for you. Bandwidth is expensive to procure in a rural area, if you wish to change that, maybe it's time to find some investors and build your own network into an urban area where bandwidth, and interconnections in general, are more reasonably priced. Also, based on your logic within this whole thread, if I was a customer of yours, I'd expect you to pay me to use your services as you would be looking to get paid for my use of third party services. Also, I believe that what happened between Comcast and Netflix is temporary, much like what happened between Comcast and Level(3). charles
So it sounds like your customers want to use the service being sold, but you can't afford to service them due to the pricing they are being charged...Sounds like you need to raise prices. While I haven't worked for a rural wireless ISP, I have work for wired ISP's in the days of modems, Large transit networks and MSO's. If it costs you more to provide service then you charge for it, your a charity, not a business. -jim On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM, <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of its freight.
If your ISP isn't tall enough for Netflix, Akamai has a lower barrier of entry. Have you let Akamai give you a local cache? why or why not?
Akamai refused to do so when we approached them. The Akamai rep was rather rude and dismissive about it; we were too small to be worthy of their attention.
It's important to note that the growth of rural ISPs is limited by population. Even if we did not have rapacious cable and telephone monopolies to compete with, our size is naturally limited by the number of possible customers. Each of those customers is every bit as valuable as an urban customer, but Netflix won't even give us the SAME amount per customer it gives Comcast, much less more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of line because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing to allow caching.
If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty.
Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and lower costs due to caching at the ISP.
--Brett Glass
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:09 AM, <nanog@brettglass.com> wrote:
At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses.
I know I'm just a dumb troll, but don't you have the same bandwidth demands already from your users pulling down netflix content today? If your users don't use netflix, then this is a moot point, and we can end the discussion now. If your users *do* use netflix currently, then you already have this bandwidth demand on your network, and finding ways to reduce or offload it would be an improvement.
And Netflix would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of its freight.
Why not follow a model that other networks use (if you've ever bought transit in Asia, you've no doubt come across this -- you get a price of $x/mbps for transit; but if you're exchanging traffic with China ASes, that traffic is billed at $x*6/mbps.) Simply inform your users that due to the heavy demands netflix places on your infrastructure, you'll need to add a streaming surcharge onto their monthly bill to cover the costs, and then let the market solve your problem. Either users really do want netflix badly enough to pay the surchage and cover your costs, or they opt to find a different provider (in which case their heavy bandwidth usage is no longer impacting your network, so problem solved), or they decide they really didn't need netflix that badly (in which case the heavy bandwidth usage also goes away, and your problem is solved).
If your ISP isn't tall enough for Netflix, Akamai has a lower barrier of entry. Have you let Akamai give you a local cache? why or why not?
Akamai refused to do so when we approached them. The Akamai rep was rather rude and dismissive about it; we were too small to be worthy of their attention.
It's important to note that the growth of rural ISPs is limited by population. Even if we did not have rapacious cable and telephone monopolies to compete with, our size is naturally limited by the number of possible customers. Each of those customers is every bit as valuable as an urban customer, but Netflix won't even give us the SAME amount per customer it gives Comcast, much less more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of line because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing to allow caching.
See, this is why I think it was a bad move for any content player to bow to $cableco's demands; it's a slippery slope. Once you negotiate with one extortionist, the next blackmailer asks for even more money. The only answer is to never negotiate with...er, sorry, tuned into the wrong psychic channel there for a moment.
If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty.
And the rebellion will take what form, exactly? Cutting off netflix and other alternative content sources, leaving people with the predetermined slop fed to them over the airwaves and by their franchise-agreement-granted-monopoly cable company? Seems like exactly what the cable companies want. It's good they've managed to recruit an army of foot soldiers to lead the vanguard of the attack without even having to pay them--they can sit back and keep their hands relatively unbloodied as the battle unfolds.
Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and lower costs due to caching at the ISP.
That won't happen, because allowing content to be freely cached at the edge without control is tantamount to giving the content away without restriction; and no level of premium content is going to come with a license like that. Like it or not, no content creator is going to give up all rights to their content like that; it's not a (currently) viable business model. You might just as well ask why George Lucas continues to charge money for showings of his movies (oh, right--better make that Bob Iger now, sorry. ^_^;) Content creation is a business, and needs to make money to stay in business. Until that end of the equation changes, allowing content to be freely cached, replicated, and distributed just isn't going to happen, and to expect otherwise is hopelessly unrealistic.
--Brett Glass
Matt
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses.
I know I'm just a dumb troll, but don't you have the same bandwidth demands already from your users pulling down netflix content today?
This is an interesting conversation to watch as a non-important, non-influential outsider. Brett's calculation is the cost of: (BW of preloading X new shows a week in multiple formats) is greater than (BW of Z % of his user base watching Y streams a week) It's not been clearly stated whether X is 100% of new shows, but I suspect it's more along the lines of mostly what Netflix expects to be popular. Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch. Brett touched on this in the Security Now episode, but I don't think he was clear so I want to explore the realities of these options. IMHO two solutions exist that would make small people like Brett much happier with this Netflix box: 1) Make the box an on-demand cache: the first customer who watches a show causes the episode to stream/push_high_bw to the box, and from the box out to the customer. Any subsequent customer gets it directly from the box, even if the initial stream is still ongoing. Complications do arise if the second (or third) customer tries to move beyond the current location of the initial stream. 2) My suggestion is probably less popular because it requires a person with (maybe more than) a few minutes, but give the list of shows desired to be pre-pushed to the box to $ISP and give them a couple hours to uncheck certain things that they know or suspect their users won't watch, allowing them to reduce their bandwidth usage. And conversely, provide a checkbox of shows that the ISP wants to never be cached on the box. I did agree with the comment later in the email that making content freely cached is a non-starter because that content could be copied too easily. However, if the Netflix box is what does all of the on-demand caching in #1, then it leaves the power in Netflix's hands, while not requiring the ISP to download multiple copies of shows that its users will never watch. A lot of this is dependent upon: 1) How many different copies of a single show are pushed to the box. Does that number vary per show. 2) How many shows are pushed/pre-pushed to the box per week. How frequently. ...Todd -- The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Todd Lyons <tlyons@ivenue.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses.
I know I'm just a dumb troll, but don't you have the same bandwidth demands already from your users pulling down netflix content today?
This is an interesting conversation to watch as a non-important, non-influential outsider.
Brett's calculation is the cost of:
(BW of preloading X new shows a week in multiple formats) is greater than (BW of Z % of his user base watching Y streams a week)
It's not been clearly stated whether X is 100% of new shows, but I suspect it's more along the lines of mostly what Netflix expects to be popular.
Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch.
Thank you for clarifying that; I thought what Brett was concerned about was traffic in the downstream direction, not traffic for populating the appliance.
Brett touched on this in the Security Now episode, but I don't think he was clear so I want to explore the realities of these options. IMHO two solutions exist that would make small people like Brett much happier with this Netflix box:
1) Make the box an on-demand cache: the first customer who watches a show causes the episode to stream/push_high_bw to the box, and from the box out to the customer. Any subsequent customer gets it directly from the box, even if the initial stream is still ongoing. Complications do arise if the second (or third) customer tries to move beyond the current location of the initial stream.
2) My suggestion is probably less popular because it requires a person with (maybe more than) a few minutes, but give the list of shows desired to be pre-pushed to the box to $ISP and give them a couple hours to uncheck certain things that they know or suspect their users won't watch, allowing them to reduce their bandwidth usage. And conversely, provide a checkbox of shows that the ISP wants to never be cached on the box.
What if Netflix provided a third option; give the ISP a small UI through which they could set a "not-to-exceed" traffic rate on the appliance; the appliance would then seek to fill itself with content according to its priority-ranked listing by popularity, with the rsync (or whatever underlying technology it utilizes) set to rate limit itself to the value set by the ISP. It's already clear that netflix can handle streaming content that is *not* within the openconnect appliances, as that's what they do for the rest of their long tail content; this would simply shift where in the list of content the "long tail" began for users of this ISP. This would allow the ISP to gain the benefit of localized content sourcing for the historically highly popular content, while controlling the infeed volume to an acceptable rate for their network. Even setting a relatively small infeed rate of 100mb/sec would allow the appliance to populate 1TB/day of content, which would account for 30 DVD-sized titles/day--and I'm sure netflix compresses its data sources down considerably better than a 4GB DVD image file. I think that approach would help keep both sides happier; Netflix keeps control over the content in its appliance, and the smaller ISPs get the traffic offload benefit without having to sacrifice a huge volume of the upstream bandwidth to the appliance.
I did agree with the comment later in the email that making content freely cached is a non-starter because that content could be copied too easily. However, if the Netflix box is what does all of the on-demand caching in #1, then it leaves the power in Netflix's hands, while not requiring the ISP to download multiple copies of shows that its users will never watch.
A lot of this is dependent upon: 1) How many different copies of a single show are pushed to the box. Does that number vary per show. 2) How many shows are pushed/pre-pushed to the box per week. How frequently.
...Todd -- The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine
Yup--I think fundamentally the challenge here is how to give the ISP some level of control over the bandwidth consumption. Solving that, whether by changing to a pure on-demand model, or by giving a knob to change the infeed rate, would I think make netflix considerably more popular with the smaller sized ISPs. Thanks! Matt
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Todd Lyons <tlyons@ivenue.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote: Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch.
However..... (1) There are other considerations besides bandwidth saved: there is customer experience improvement if latency and therefore load times decrease. (2) You or a cache box don't know which streams your customers will watch in advance. Although the cache units preload popular content, not necessarily the entire catalog. Your users are most likely watch during peak hours, which is the time at which more bandwidth is the most expensive... at most other times, additional bandwidth usage is $0, so it doesn't strictly matter, necessarily, if more total transfer is required using a cache box than not. (3) If you don't have at least a couple Gigabits of Netflix traffic, you are unlikely to consider undertaking the expense of the SLA requirements before you can run a box, electricity, space in the first place, if you even meet the traffic minimums required to get free cache boxes. And (4) The "pushing of shows to the units" occur during a configured fill window, which their guides say will be defined by the provider's network planning team in a manner and maximum bandwidth demand over that time suited to your traffic profile, so as to not increase the 95-th percentile traffic from your upstream. For example: the fill window can occur during the hours of the day when there is little interactive customer traffic. They recommend a 10 to 12 hour fill window with a maximum rate of 1.2 Gigabits. http://oc.nflxvideo.net/docs/OpenConnect-Deployment-Guide.pdf Therefore, in any of the cases where cache boxes have actually been implemented properly, they are still likely to be a net benefit for both provider and customers.
Thank you for clarifying that; I thought what Brett was concerned about was traffic in the downstream direction, not traffic for populating the appliance. -- -JH
A third option is to use a transparent caching box, so it caches what's seen. At $20/Mbps I suspect all the popular vendors would find three year or less ROI. Frank -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Todd Lyons Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 12:17 PM Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses.
I know I'm just a dumb troll, but don't you have the same bandwidth demands already from your users pulling down netflix content today?
This is an interesting conversation to watch as a non-important, non-influential outsider. Brett's calculation is the cost of: (BW of preloading X new shows a week in multiple formats) is greater than (BW of Z % of his user base watching Y streams a week) It's not been clearly stated whether X is 100% of new shows, but I suspect it's more along the lines of mostly what Netflix expects to be popular. Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is large, much larger than the sum of the streams his customers do watch. Brett touched on this in the Security Now episode, but I don't think he was clear so I want to explore the realities of these options. IMHO two solutions exist that would make small people like Brett much happier with this Netflix box: 1) Make the box an on-demand cache: the first customer who watches a show causes the episode to stream/push_high_bw to the box, and from the box out to the customer. Any subsequent customer gets it directly from the box, even if the initial stream is still ongoing. Complications do arise if the second (or third) customer tries to move beyond the current location of the initial stream. 2) My suggestion is probably less popular because it requires a person with (maybe more than) a few minutes, but give the list of shows desired to be pre-pushed to the box to $ISP and give them a couple hours to uncheck certain things that they know or suspect their users won't watch, allowing them to reduce their bandwidth usage. And conversely, provide a checkbox of shows that the ISP wants to never be cached on the box. I did agree with the comment later in the email that making content freely cached is a non-starter because that content could be copied too easily. However, if the Netflix box is what does all of the on-demand caching in #1, then it leaves the power in Netflix's hands, while not requiring the ISP to download multiple copies of shows that its users will never watch. A lot of this is dependent upon: 1) How many different copies of a single show are pushed to the box. Does that number vary per show. 2) How many shows are pushed/pre-pushed to the box per week. How frequently. ...Todd -- The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0. If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want, send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine
On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , nanog@brettglass.com wrote:
At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of its freight.
So, to sum up, Brett, you feel that Netflix should be forced to bill their BrettGlassNet users extra to cover what they pay to BrettGlassNet to reach the users to deliver the content the users have requested instead of expecting you to bill the users for that yourself. Because Netflix refuses to do this and has enough of a market presence that you aren't succeeding so well telling your customers that they shouldn't care so much about Netflix, you're blaming Netflix for this problem? It's a shame to see a small provider acting so much like the big $CABLECO and $TELCO providers thinking that they have a right to extort money from content providers to avoid billing their subscribers more accurately.
more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of line because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing to allow caching.
The fact that some access provider was able to extort Netflix because they are a bigger 800# gorilla than Netflix shouldn't make you expect that you can extort Netflix in the same way, nor does it mean that by refusing to be extorted by smaller providers, Netflix is extorting you with their market position. In an ideal world, frankly, none of the access providers would be allowed to double-dip like this. You should have to bill your customers for the traffic you deliver to them. If they want more than your network can accommodate at what they currently pay, then they should have to pay. How you sort that out with your customers is your business. If you don't want your customers that don't use Netflix to subsidize your customers that use Netflix, use a usage-sensitive pricing or charge a premium service of some sort or whatever. That's between you and your customers (so long as you have competition and your customers have choice).
If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty.
I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying to find ways to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their customers accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone involved.
Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and lower costs due to caching at the ISP.
Your best hope is to see your competition forced to move to a pricing model that reflects the costs of delivering what their customers demand so that you can move to a similar pricing model without losing customers. It's not that I'm insensitive to your situation, just that I see this as an example of one of the many ways in which the current model has become utterly dysfunctional and attempting to perpetuate it seems ill-advised to me. If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on Netlfix". If Netflix only peered in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive nationwide network, I'd say shame on Netflix. Reality is that Netflix is in most of the major peering centers already and continues to work aggressively to expand into more and more second-tier and third-tier peering centers. I'd say that is Netflix paying their share. Further, for providers that aren't in peering centers Netflix is in, they have offered a variety of alternative solutions and they pay a selection of transit providers to move the bits to providers they can't economically connect to directly. It seems to me that Netflix is being about as good a net citizen as is possible and I, for one, consider them an example that should be emulated. Access providers should have to face the reality that they are charging their customers to deliver bits they request to them. If the price they charge is insufficient to cover their costs in doing so, then they need to find ways to solve that problem. It is not Netflix fault that your customers want more bits from Netflix than they want from some other content provider, that's just Netflix having a successful business. I might have bought the idea that Netflix as a new product represents so much more than expected bandwidth that you needed time to adjust your business model if you were making that argument 5 or more years ago. However, today, video is an expected service and Netflix is far from the only very large provider of high-bandwidth video content. Owen
On 7/16/14, 3:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , nanog@brettglass.com wrote:
If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying to find ways to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their customers accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone involved.
Indeed. We've heard this at each turn of the bandwidth crank from OMG JPG's! to OMG VoIP! to OMG HD! to OMG Quantum Teleportation! (ok, maybe not the last. yet.) Nobody's owed a business model, and we all know it's messy around the edges. Suck it up, and maybe your customers will too. Mike
On 17 July 2014 00:57, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on Netlfix". If Netflix only peered in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive nationwide network, I'd say shame on Netflix. Reality is that Netflix is in most of the major peering centers already and continues to work aggressively to expand into more and more second-tier and third-tier peering centers. I'd say that is Netflix paying their share. Further, for providers that aren't in peering centers Netflix is in, they have offered a variety of alternative solutions and they pay a selection of transit providers to move the bits to providers they can't economically connect to directly.
Except they don't. Excuse me for talking about the world outside America. Netflix believes Denmark is an important enough market to pay for danish subtitles for their entire catalog and to have Denmark as a launch market for their service in Europe. But they can't be bothered to have a physical presence in Denmark. We have to go to a different country and a long way at that, to get to Stockholm in Sweden, where Netflix peers at the Netnod IX. Some danish ISPs do peer at Netnod, but it is only the ones that are big enough to qualify for a cache anyway. It is not economical to buy a link to Stockholm. Transit is cheaper, so that is what we are all doing. Then Netflix announces that you have to either have a cache or to peer directly with Netflix to get Super HD. This is a case of reverse net neutrality: The content provider is filtering content to ISPs that wont pay the transit bill for the content provider. "for the content provider" not "to the content provider". We pay our transit, it should not be our problem how Netflix pays theirs. Luckily this is so far only theory. We still get the Super HD. Either Netflix never implemented the policy or one of our transit providers made a deal with Netflix. I am not sure which one. But nevertheless even threatening to play reverse net neutrality games is NOT being the good guy. If transit is too expensive for Netflix, they should put in a shared cache at the danish IX (DIX) in Copenhagen. We would all be happy to peer with Netflix at that location. If Netflix chooses to host the cache at Interxion they also get access to the Netnod IX that covers Denmark and southern Sweden, a metropolitan area of more than 10 million people. Regards, Baldur
participants (10)
-
Baldur Norddahl -
Charles Gucker -
Frank Bulk (iname.com) -
jim deleskie -
Jimmy Hess -
Matthew Petach -
Michael Thomas -
nanogļ¼ brettglass.com -
Owen DeLong -
Todd Lyons