Gah, While I'd agree that Netflix shouldn't get free transit, AT&T shouldn't be charging for better access than Netflix can get over other tier 1s.
Likewise, for local delivery there's nothing wrong with peering. Besides, when a small ISP starts up they have to buy transit/lay fibre to a major PoP. I'd not see them, or ISPs in other remote areas, charging for "transit". On 5 Aug 2014 10:57, "Marcus Reid" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:05PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Jay Ashworth" <[email protected]> > > > > > > Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and > > > > Verizon. > > > > > > > > > http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ > > > > > > Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt "Netflix agrees to > > > buy transit from AT&T"? > > > > As several people were kind enough to point out to me off-list, "yes" > > is the answer to that question. > > Thanks Jay. Can you put it in a nutshell just in case others are a > little vague on the finer points of these arrangements and their > significance in the current content provider / network provider row? > > The best thing about journalists is that they're always right (unless > they're writing about something you know about, in which case they seem > to always screw it up.) I like how in this case the author declares > that "This is the new normal." > > Marcus >
