With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question: Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
-P On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild <a...@latency.net> wrote: > I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of > commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at > scale and absent congestion. I contend that there is not. > > I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering > partner... > > $0.02, > -a > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote: > >> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict >> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and >> other peers. I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix >> works very well....they don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct >> peering is possible. >> >> Thank You >> Bob Evans >> CTO >> >> >> >> >>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given >>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people >>>> *already*, >>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic? >>> >>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs >>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their >>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? >>> >>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal? >>> >>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they >>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun? >>> >>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime. >>> >>> brandon >>> >> >> >