[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Subject: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli)
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:31:05 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAKJkDEsmWEPv001v_t-mQSV-6TstkJdvvZ1TfBzjiZvOVkHUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSYZo_j+XpYDBBkNmq+X1=dLiL5z9EvMFQdSWHXqkgg8w@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAD6AjGSFJnnWJZ_vKzP37fN4fCiWb=10sx-goS1=aQFsexeUWw@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote:
>>
>> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>>
http://bgp.he.net/AS6167
> 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
>
>> Sent via telepathy
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
>>> practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also
>>> suffer the same performance issue?
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140722/5110ae74/attachment.pgp>