On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Derek Balling wrote:
On Jul 22, 2014, at 3:13 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
ISPs are also making record profits, so it's not like they are hurting for
money.
Sure, it's easy to attack the people who are profitable. Nasty, evil,
profitable corporations, they takes our money, precious, yesssssssss.
So what evidence is there that the costs are not covered?
And if they aren't covered, why are they not covered for going to Netflix, but
are covered if they go to another site and use the same bandwidth?
Can you, say, name some other examples of companies who peer with Verizon and
send as much traffic their way? Because what's congested is the peering point,
the actual interconnect between Verizon and Netflix. So, what other content
providers are streaming the same quantity of traffic to VZN as Netflix is, and
doing so without issue?
So it would be perfectly fine if the traffic was equally balanced?
so if the customers were sending as much traffic out to netflix as they got in
rom netflix it would be a good thing for the verizon network?
It's not as if we are talking about a large investment needed on the Verizon
side. They've publicly said that they have lots of excess capacity available
right now, it's only a single router that needs to be upgraded (and level3 has
offered to pay for the card, cables, and manpower to upgrade it)
But this gets down to the basic fact that we disagree on the cause of this
traffic
You view this as the Evil Netflix bombarding the Innocent Verizon network while
I view this as Netflix responding the requests from Verizon users.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
