Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
One thing I've noted from those that support Verizon in this thread is that they often talk about Netflix's policy being unfair on small ISPs. Verizon is not a small ISP. Small ISPs seem happy peering with Netflix when they can (in fact they seem happy peering with anyone given there costs of transit) or getting a cache if they're big enough. My way of thinking it always has been that you are an ISP. An INTERNET service provider. As such you must make a best effort attempt to connect your customers to the internet at the speed you advertise. Let's cut the crap, Verizon is not irritated by Netflix's policies. They're irritated by Netflix and friends cutting into their far more lucrative content market.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, mcfbbqroast . <bbqroast@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Let's cut the crap, Verizon is not irritated by Netflix's policies. They're irritated by Netflix and friends cutting into their far more lucrative content market.
True--otherwise, it would make more sense for Verizon to simply ask for some OpenConnect appliances to host in their network, and stop worrying about the entire peering policy question entirely.
I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison. NOT CACHING with Netflix - up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a month from a major hub with a big commit? - a 10gbps port to transit provider CACHING with Netflix - up to 500w of power and 4u rack space - in a commercial DC that's a few hundred a month, most telecoms have rack space in their own office - a 10gbps port to server - the same - transit commitment in off peak hours - most telecoms have plenty of this to spare That's a pretty massive saving. I still do not understand how Netflix should pay for customers using your network. Its like charging another carrier to receive a phone call from your network, because you want to have cheaper plans. The risk is, the policy Brett suggests, will misrepresent ISP pricing. This is a huge issue. Brett? How do you think you can compete with big providers when they're subsidized by Netflix? Bare in mind they'll have much more power in negotiating with Netflix than you. Your customers will be paying for Netflix, subsidizing your competitor! Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ISP in New Zealand called slingshot that popped up on my radar. Transit in NZ appears to be expensive as hell ($20+/Mbps for bulk buys from competitive PoPs) yet this ISP, Slingshot, encourages customers to use their VPN to access Netflix. This is notable to our conversation because when any ISPs are proposing whats essentially a "Netflix tax" another one, who pays 20x or more for transit and cannot cache Netflix are encouraging use of Netflix. Why? Publicity. Brett, you might like a look at that because they charge $10 more than the cheapest competitor, but the proxy service they provide (which probably costs them pennies) keeps customers flowing like water for its ease of use. In a age where internet is becoming a commodity these are the types of services that can keep you afloat. Alternatively, use this debacle as advertising! I've seen many cable users complain about Netflix being very slow, could advertising that you don't throttle Netflix give you a competitive edge in cable territory??
The choice for ISPs at larger scale is peering or caching, peering is cheaper than caching as power is not as cheap as you think as well as the requirement to have two of everything for failover if you do caches (ie can't have my transits or more likely my backhaul blow up if the caches go away). I also typically don't want to give up the opportunity cost on the power in our main pops as it is not what the power costs, but rather what you could sell it for that matters in most of our core sites. We don't cache in head-ends as we still would need the backhaul anyway if the caches fail so we can't really reduce the backhaul requirement much. We have some middle tier sites in the cable network, but the benefit of throwing caches at those locations has never really been there since they are not staffed the same way etc. I think a lot of big networks have this issue. John -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of mcfbbqroast . Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:09 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison. NOT CACHING with Netflix - up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a month from a major hub with a big commit? - a 10gbps port to transit provider CACHING with Netflix - up to 500w of power and 4u rack space - in a commercial DC that's a few hundred a month, most telecoms have rack space in their own office - a 10gbps port to server - the same - transit commitment in off peak hours - most telecoms have plenty of this to spare That's a pretty massive saving. I still do not understand how Netflix should pay for customers using your network. Its like charging another carrier to receive a phone call from your network, because you want to have cheaper plans. The risk is, the policy Brett suggests, will misrepresent ISP pricing. This is a huge issue. Brett? How do you think you can compete with big providers when they're subsidized by Netflix? Bare in mind they'll have much more power in negotiating with Netflix than you. Your customers will be paying for Netflix, subsidizing your competitor! Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ISP in New Zealand called slingshot that popped up on my radar. Transit in NZ appears to be expensive as hell ($20+/Mbps for bulk buys from competitive PoPs) yet this ISP, Slingshot, encourages customers to use their VPN to access Netflix. This is notable to our conversation because when any ISPs are proposing whats essentially a "Netflix tax" another one, who pays 20x or more for transit and cannot cache Netflix are encouraging use of Netflix. Why? Publicity. Brett, you might like a look at that because they charge $10 more than the cheapest competitor, but the proxy service they provide (which probably costs them pennies) keeps customers flowing like water for its ease of use. In a age where internet is becoming a commodity these are the types of services that can keep you afloat. Alternatively, use this debacle as advertising! I've seen many cable users complain about Netflix being very slow, could advertising that you don't throttle Netflix give you a competitive edge in cable territory??
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
As I understand it, both Verizon and Verizon Wireless rely primarily on Verizon Business (the old UUNet) for bandwidth and Verizon Business has a peering capacity problem with Level 3, Cogent, and I presume others as well. 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?
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. Sent via telepathy
On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base
Sent via telepathy
On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) pricing. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers.
Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base
Sent via telepathy
On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) pricing.
http://bgp.he.net/AS6167 It has more to do with the fact that until recently they were a joint venture of Verizon and vodafone. That changed in February: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec25c1dc-9aed-11e3-b0d0-00144feab7de.html - Jared
Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> writes:
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers.
Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base
Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business units. From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they can.
Daniel Corbe wrote:
Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> writes:
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers.
Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base
Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business units. From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they can.
Definitely different business units. Verizon wireless has long been somewhat at arms length from the rest of Verizon - part of the reason that their consumer billing is such a pain. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote:
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers.
Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base
Sent via telepathy
On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers.
Verizon and Verizon Wireless share, I have been told, not much more than a name. The two divisions came from completely different roots. Cheers, -- jra -- 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
participants (11)
-
Ca By -
Daniel Corbe -
Jared Mauch -
Jay Ashworth -
joel jaeggli -
John van Oppen -
Matthew Petach -
mcfbbqroast . -
Miles Fidelman -
Scott Helms -
William Herrin