Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomfool | Hacker News Reader

Your ISP wanting money to install caching servers for Netflix and YouTube is not something which has been covered ny net neutrality in the past. It would be great if there was a fixed colo fee for caching servers.

That said, I pay my ISP for bandwidth and service. It's bullshit if they refuse free installation of caching servers which improves my service and frees up upstream bandwidth for others.

View on HN

If an ISP thinks the bandwidth savings of caching servers don't outweigh the space and power that they consume, there's always peering. It sounds like major broadband ISPs are doing neither.

>It would be great if there was a fixed colo fee for caching servers.

Great for whom? Legally mandated fixed fee services are generally not the highest in customer satisfaction.

FWIW, if Netflix agrees to install one of their appliances in your network, they do it completely free of charge.

If you don't meet their requirements (which are based upon average aggregate traffic levels), you can't even pay them to get one.

If your ISP meets the requirements and is refusing, well, it's their own damn fault -- they're simply wasting money.

Personally, I am happy to peer with anyone with whom I share a presence, even if they're an "eyeball network" like me and we'd only be passing a few megabits of traffic.

Looking forward to Netflix Preferred(TM) ISP recommendations.

http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/

I can't believe ISPs would fight free caching servers. I was happy when I saw traffic coming from somehost.myisp.net while loading content from YouTube.

Streaming video competes with Comcast's original and probably much higher profit product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com