Thanks. I thought it was something factually wrong.

It is also likely factually wrong as most major ISPs use GGC for popular traffic

After using Deutsche Telekom as an example of how great direct peering is, a few paragraphs later the article uses Deutsche Telekom as an example of the dangers of using peering provider intermediaries.

Is it the only peering of Starlink though?

? My comment had nothing to do with Starlink.

Your first example I was referring to - which you've now edited out of the article[0] to be more generic - stated:

> When Deutsche Telekom customers want to watch YouTube, that traffic flows directly from Google's network to Deutsche Telekom's network at a Frankfurt exchange point—maybe four or five router hops, minimal latency, no intermediaries. It's elegant. It's efficient. And it's exactly what Vodafone is abandoning.

Later:

> Deutsche Telekom pioneered this model in Germany, and the results have been catastrophic for customers. Not "slightly annoying" or "a bit slower"—genuinely, documentably terrible.

0 - original here: https://web.archive.org/web/20251107180616/https://coffee.li...

fair enough. I replied to the wrong comment. Sorry for that.

coffee.link is getting a git based version feature to make changes more transparent.

Also there is a deno (+ electron for GUI version) based testing tool coming to better understand network routes.

Additionally I plan to do a well researched series called "How does the internet work".

SpaceX is both customer and peer of inter.link