On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote: > >> And, of course, one might ask why Netflix isn't ... making use of a >>> caching network like Akamai, as many other large traffic sources do >>> on a routine basis. >>> >> they do. netflix rolls their own cache servers, installable in any >> network >> >> >> > At the ISPs expense, including connectivity to a peering point. Most > content providers pay Akamai, Netflix wants ISPs to pay them. Hmmm.... > Uh, yeah, you've already been corrected on that score, no need to spank you again for that one... > Now I write a check every month to both Verizon and Netflix - and clearly > it would be nice if some of that went to provisioning better service > between the two. But I can as easily point to Netflix, as to Verizon, when > it comes to which dollar stream should be going to bigger (or more > efficient) pipes. So, if Netflix had to pay additional money to get direct links to Verizon, you'd be OK paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those additional costs, right? And when Time Warner also wants Netflix to pay for direct connections, you'd be ok paying an additional 50cents/month to cover those costs as well, right? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to Sprint? And another 50cents/month for the direct connections to cablevision? (repeat for whatever top list of eyeball networks you want to reference). At what point do you draw the line and say "wait a minute, this model isn't scalable; if every eyeball network charges netflix to connect directly to them, my Netflix bill is going to be $70/month instead of $7/month, and I'm going to end up cancelling my subscription to them." > > Miles Fidelman > Matt