Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

hmm... so Netflix paid cogent before, and now you think they should not pay Comcast for the same service? Where is your logic?



Netflix's blog post lays out the argument here: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.h...

(The relevant quote is: "(1) [Transit Networks (e.g. Cogent)] carry traffic over long distances and (2) they provide access to every network on the global Internet. When Netflix connects directly to the Comcast network, Comcast is not providing either of the services typically provided by transit networks.")

Netflix is questioning the premise of your question by suggesting that Cogent and Comcast are _not_ providing the same service. I find the argument fairly compelling, though I'd be willing to hear counter-arguments.


Right, Comcast is providing transit to their customers, which the aforementioned transit providers could not adequately handle. Although it is not a typical transit network it is still the only route to Comcast customers.

So, if the existing backbone transit providers are not adequate, Netflix should be and needs to be covering the cost of the bandwidth when directly peered with Comcast. Otherwise the cost of this bandwidth is transferred to Comcast customers, all of which do not use the Netflix service.

It really comes down to this... Do all Comcast subscribers deserve to pay for bandwidth that is created by the minority that uses the Netflix service? I do not believe so. The cost should be with the Netflix, they create the overhead, they should pay for it.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: