4 ms·
It could be so that the ISP can't claim "if you had peered with us, we wouldn't be so congested" or some other BS.
by ilyanep 12y ago
It could be so that the ISP can't claim "if you had peered with us, we wouldn't be so congested" or some other BS.
- vog 12y agoIn Germany, this would actually be a great thing! If the German Telekom (biggest provider here, formerly owned by the state) played that card, other providers could start to demand peering with them. The strange thing with German Telekom is not that peering with them would be too expensive, it is that they don't take part in the big peering points at all. As a "smaller" provider, you can connect with Telekom on by becoming a Telekom customer, but not on eye level as a peering partner.
- tacticus 12y agoWe have a similar problem in australia. The ACCC (consumer competition watchdogs) forced the 4 largest at the time to peer together (which was a good move) but they refuse to peer with other australian ISPs. They also control a fair chunk of the overseas connections.
- icodestuff 12y agoSure, but Netflix did "peer" with Verizon (read: put their servers on the Verizon network). At this point, anything happening is either Netflix's fault (for not buying enough bandwidth) or Verizon's fault (for having a congested internal network), and we don't have enough information to know which. Could also be that the agreement had an anti-defamation clause, and Verizon was counting on that to avoid upgrading their internal network.