Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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.

2

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.

3

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??

4

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

5

Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also
suffer the same performance issue?

6

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

7

Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.

8

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

9

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

10

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> writes:

11

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

12

Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.

13

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

14

Daniel Corbe wrote:

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> writes:

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