Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Traffic Shifting Away From Tier-1 Carriers

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the shake-hands-with-the-big-boys dept.

The Internet 153

carusoj writes 'The way traffic moves over the Internet has changed radically in the last five years. Arbor Networks next week will present the results of a two-year study, drawing on more than 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, which found that the bulk of international Internet traffic no longer moves across Tier-1 transit providers. Instead, the traffic is handled directly by large content providers, content delivery networks, and consumer networks, and is handed off from one of these to another. You can probably guess what some of these companies are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook. Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30% of all Internet traffic.' Here is the Arbor Networks press release on the report.

cancel ×

153 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29769799)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770479)

Hi!

I am a young white girl and I am just bananas for black men. I like them as thugged out as possible, to the point where I can't understand a word they say.

Are you thugged out?

If so please post ASL and a phone number so we can talk. Maybe we could fuck, then you could fuck all my friends too but I'd still stay with you because I love you and society just wants to tear us apart because they don't like interracial dating but I'm so trendy I don't care what everyone else thinks.

Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770943)

Wussup guh

SHeeit guh Ima holla at ya cuz I be straight-up. I be packin' hung and I gotz herpes and aidz but so what no otha dymepieces giva fucc cuz I got 5 kiz from fo diffrent mamaz!!!!!!!

Dey shut up when muh-dikk go in 'em. Dey go coo-coo fo coco puffs!

22/m/ChI-ToWn Chicaco beatches! Hollaback at (312) 850-7000 fo dat azz.

It's as if... (4, Funny)

bconway (63464) | about 5 years ago | (#29769853)

the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks. And all is right in the world again.

Triple sec shooters (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770397)

Oh my god im going to poop!
 
There will be so much poop!

RIAA has won! (3, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | about 5 years ago | (#29771583)

From TFA:

Arbor also notes that Internet applications used to use a more diverse set of application-specific protocols and communication stacks, but that has consolidated as well. Traffic these days is concentrated on a small number of Web and video protocols, while peer-to-peer traffic has nosedived in the past two years.

That leads to one of two conclusions:

  1. RIAA has won! Suck on it NewYorkCountryLawyer and all those who doubted that suing your customers was the gateway to success.
  2. RIAA overstated the problem in the first place. Nah, couldn't be.....

Re:RIAA has won! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29771813)

The RIAA has not won. Its just that they have not produced anything for a couple years that was worth wasting bandwidth on when I could be downloading lolcats instead.

Re:RIAA has won! (1)

Carnildo (712617) | about 5 years ago | (#29771819)

3. Peer-to-peer networks have gotten more efficient over the years. Early implementations of Gnutilla, for example, generated something like 75% of the Internet's traffic just holding itself together, about another 5% moving search requests and results around, and 1% transferring data.

Re:It's as if... (1)

Ponga (934481) | about 5 years ago | (#29771599)

...the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks...

It's actually a series of TUBES.

more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality rule (5, Insightful)

virchull (963203) | about 5 years ago | (#29769897)

With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows. The FCC needs to set rules that create a neutral, flat playing field for all agents on the Internet - regardless of size or their role.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 years ago | (#29769981)

Please explain to me, and the rest of the audience, why the FCC, an American organization full of Bu$h appointees, should have any say whatsoever in the regulation of the internet, an international network that long ago left the sponsorship of the U$ Government?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (3, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#29770045)

Plea$e u$e a few more $'$ in your po$t, it'$ make$ you $ound much more authoritative...

Out of curiosity, who SHOULD regulate the internet? Also out of curiosity, who hosts the majority of the internet? They're the ones bearing the monetary burden. I suppose some people might think the internet is just sort of "out there," but I hope most on Slashdot understand that the internet boils down to actual physical machines (er, sorry... tubes) which cost money to build and keep running...

Should the FCC? Not necessarily. On the other hand, I sure would rather have the FCC running it than, say, Iran. Or the UK. Or the UN, which can't seem to do anything except tell people what to do anyways - and they don't even do that very well, if you yell loud enough...

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 years ago | (#29771129)

Why do you think the Internet needs regulation?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 5 years ago | (#29770051)

Spot on. The rise of the multi-national corporation continues. At some point their power will eclipse that of all but a few countries. This will result in a strengthened form on international government to counteract that power. Or, we are looking at rule of the people through corporations. Some will argue this has already happened.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770331)

At some point their power will eclipse that of all but a few countries.

That's been the case for hundreds of years. The companies being larger than national economies changes with passing years.

This will result in a strengthened form on international government to counteract that power.

Reality is quite the opposite. With the increase in wealthy mega-corps, the govts are going to serve them even more than they do now. Laws are there to protect companies, the public itself is just the consumption machine to keep feeding the corporate beasts.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

maharb (1534501) | about 5 years ago | (#29771161)

Then, when the corporations are big enough, they will eat all the humans.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 5 years ago | (#29770945)

"At some point their[multinational corps] power will eclipse that of all but a few countries."

Hell, they run our country. That leaves, what, Russia and China. Saves us, you commies! You're our only hope! How the heck did this happen?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29772491)

Well see, hundreds of years ago a new kind of yoke started to be used that allowed horses to pull plows instead of oxen. The increase in efficiency allowed a surplus of food to be grown. This not only lowered the mortality rate of children, but caused them to seek out other forms of making a living spurring further technological and economic growth. This created the "middle class", people that had some wealth but which were not genealogically entitled as part of the ruling class. They were however, able to pool their wealth for ventures beyond their individual means. This economic company of individuals would grant a share or multiple shares of the venture's profit...

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 5 years ago | (#29771009)

Q.E.D. [americanpolicegroup.com]

p.s. the company is run by a convicted felon.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770065)

It may have left the sponsorship of the US government a while ago, but it is still largely affected by these large, US-based organizations.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | about 5 years ago | (#29770433)

Most of which are headquartered in Ireland (etc) for tax purposes.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

iammani (1392285) | about 5 years ago | (#29770125)

mm, is bush still in control of FCC? I am surprised.

And to answer your question. yes, I would love to have the FCC regulate the Internet Service Providers (not the Internet) and the quality of service being provided.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 5 years ago | (#29770153)

Umm... the FCC net neutrality rules are for ISPs in the US SPARKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good freaking grief we are talking about regulations FOR US COMPANIES, OPERATING IN THE US, SUPPLY SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS IN THE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about that for a reason!!!!!

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (3, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#29770993)

Umm... the FCC net neutrality rules are for ISPs in the US SPARKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good freaking grief we are talking about regulations FOR US COMPANIES, OPERATING IN THE US, SUPPLY SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS IN THE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about that for a reason!!!!!

Can you speak up? I'm having trouble hearing you.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 5 years ago | (#29772043)

Sorry but that level of stupidity really got to me today. That and at the time I posted it was modded as +3 insightful was just too much for me to handle.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29771385)

Please stop posting here until you are no longer 14 years old. Thanks.

Simple (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 5 years ago | (#29770181)

FCC rules should apply to companies that have a legal presence in the United States. Other companies should be regulated by their own countries.

There's a lot the FCC can do by regulating US ISPs, and it can also regulate any multinationals that have a US presence.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (4, Informative)

dissy (172727) | about 5 years ago | (#29770223)

Please explain to me, and the rest of the audience, why the FCC, an American organization full of Bu$h appointees, should have any say whatsoever in the regulation of the internet, an international network that long ago left the sponsorship of the U$ Government?

That idea is stupid. Please stop suggesting it!

No the GP post is correct. The FCC should get full say over what American telecom companies do.

If you either already have, or are not interested in, any of the benefits that would give your country, then great. Otherwise your own government will need to deal with your own countries companies.

In the same way as your idea to give FCC control over other countries telecom is bad, we also do not want your countries government dictating what American companies can and can't do, so it is a fair deal.

Oh by the way, if you want to bash a countries government, you should at least be aware of that government.
We get a new president every 8 years (sometimes every 4), and you are a good year out of date on the most basic piece of information above 'the country exists'

So the correct answer to your question is: "HA, that was a lame troll. You don't even know who bush or our president is!"

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770629)

You don't even know who bush or our president is!"

Many Bush appointees are still entrenched in the govt. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read some news once in a while.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

dissy (172727) | about 5 years ago | (#29770853)

Many Bush appointees are still entrenched in the govt. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read some news once in a while.

Name one of them that is in the FCC.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Informative)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 years ago | (#29771157)

Robert Malcolm McDowell ... the head of the FCC?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Interesting)

dissy (172727) | about 5 years ago | (#29771507)

Robert Malcolm McDowell ... the head of the FCC?

Way to give them the answer. Now he will just repeat that instead of learning about what he is mindlessly repeating. :P

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Funny)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 years ago | (#29771647)

I think I am one of "them", or something.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Funny)

pete6677 (681676) | about 5 years ago | (#29770267)

Lets let the UN regulate it instead. There are never any politics in UN matters, no sir.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770661)

The clean government of Nigeria coupled with the civil liberties protection of Saudi Arabia.

What can possibly go wrong?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 years ago | (#29771031)

Well, let me think a second. Every nation one earth seems to regulate the intartubez, when you think about it. China has their great (fire)wall - Iran had little difficulty deciding to pinch some tubes during their election protests, Australia has some hare brained censorship planes, as do Canada, France, Germany - need I go on?

Assuming that the United States is going to be on that bandwagon along with every other nation on earth, I'd much rather see the FCC regulating the intartubez than just about anyone else. As for the "Bush appointees" - I wasn't aware that FCC employees were appointed by anyone, much less Bush. For the most part, the FCC seems to actually have a clue, unlike congress, or the courts, or most other agencies of the US government.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

cheshiremoe (1448979) | about 5 years ago | (#29771943)

Much of the "Tubes" and the routers/switches that make up the internet are owned by the telecoms & Cable Companies, which are already regulated by the FCC (at lease in the US). As phone and Data run over the same hardware, I seems logical that it would fall to the same regulatory agency... Not that I think any part of the government is free of corruption, but who would you have do it? The EPA?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 5 years ago | (#29769997)

With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.

Actually, most of the motivation to erect additional barriers and artificial costs is the result of gatekeepers on users. What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?

This actually removes a potential problem, that being tier 1 providers using their position to extort money for not degrading performance to specific content providers. Still, I think the proposed network neutrality rules are important for network edge, last mile providers and it doesn't hurt to apply it across the board.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770077)

With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.

Actually, most of the motivation to erect additional barriers and artificial costs is the result of gatekeepers on users. What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?

This actually removes a potential problem, that being tier 1 providers using their position to extort money for not degrading performance to specific content providers. Still, I think the proposed network neutrality rules are important for network edge, last mile providers and it doesn't hurt to apply it across the board.

Umm, Google already does this, so does Yahoo and a bunch of others. Just take a trip to mainland China and see if Google works the same for you.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 5 years ago | (#29770483)

Umm, Google already does this, so does Yahoo and a bunch of others. Just take a trip to mainland China and see if Google works the same for you.

Gee, I think I'll book a trip to China to test an anonymous coward's theory. Or maybe you could provide a citation or at least details about what you're claiming. You say Google is degrading performance for users in China in order to extort more money? Also, how does a potential US law have any influence on this in any case?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about 5 years ago | (#29770711)

Actually my ex-girlfriend is in China right now, what tests should I have her run?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770861)

Herpes for sure.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29771661)

...and the FCC controls what happens on the Internet outside of the USA... how? Come up with an example that falls under the FCC's mandate and I'll be interested.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 5 years ago | (#29771945)

What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?

There was recently an article in the New Yorker that gave the following quote from Al Gore about a meeting he had with Sergey Brin and Larry Page: "They had to go to another meeting," Gore recalled, "and said, 'If you can stay, Al, we'd like to bring in the search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business.' Ten of them came in. Larry and Sergey left. I spent another three hours. And then, when it was over, I gave Larry and Sergey an oral report." Why are Goolge's "search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of this business" consulting with Al Gore? When that is combined with the fact that Google has a PAC that gave 98% of its money to Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 election cycle and other activities indicating ties between Google and the Democratic Party it is cause to carefully watch their activities for signs that they are using their position as the search leader to skew results toward their political favorites. I am unaware of any evidence that they have done so at this point, but that doesn't mean that that won't change in the future.
The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive. That they have not so far apparently acted on that motivation does not mean that they won't in the future.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 years ago | (#29772307)

A more obvious explanation is that google is a major impetus behind the net neutrality push coming from the Obama administration. I guess it's possible this is all a convoluted plot for Sergey Brin to promote abortion on demand or something, but I think it's more likely google just doesn't want to get extorted by Comcast.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (3, Insightful)

jhfry (829244) | about 5 years ago | (#29770195)

Until there are abuses, don't make laws. The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent. I can think of very few well meaning laws that haven't been used in a way that the writers didn't intend.

The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around. Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770359)

So how do I route around the only ISP available to me while holding down a full-time job and family?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29772527)

So how do I route around the only ISP available to me while holding down a full-time job and family?

to begin with stop holding down your family.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (5, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about 5 years ago | (#29770463)

The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around. Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!

That's all well and good if you're in the middle of the network with several routes to choose from. If you're on the periphery you've only got one route, through your ISP. If they're the ones being disruptive, you're Straight Outta Luck.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1, Insightful)

jhfry (829244) | about 5 years ago | (#29770599)

There are alternatives, and if your ISP is preventing you from doing what you need/want to do you would find one. Sure it may not be available right now, as there isn't a need with your current ISP. But say your ISP started charging extra if you wanted to use some popular websites... now there would be enough unhappy customers that a competitor might be able to gain some traction.

Market based solutions are not always swift, but they are usually better than legal based ones.

I know if my local ISP started treating its customers this way, I would start my own community ISP buying and reselling raw bandwidth. The worse they treat their customers the faster I would grow.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

pnuema (523776) | about 5 years ago | (#29771781)

We've tried this, remember? It turns out that those small ISPs have to buy bandwidth from the big ISPs they are competing with, and surprise surprise, those big ISPs were complete dicks and drove the small ones out of business.

Market based solutions fail when there is no market. Monopolies are not markets.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

jhfry (829244) | about 5 years ago | (#29772001)

Exactly... if they are a monopoly then there are already laws on the books to take care of that... we don't need NN laws.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

2short (466733) | about 5 years ago | (#29772291)

That's a pretty hypothetical, but the real world is more complicated.

I have only one good option for broadband. They are named Comcast. They violate net neutrality to throttle Bittorent traffic. No competitor has arisen; it seems unlikely one will, but possible a legal solution will force them to stop.

If you think you can exploit the huge market demand for unfiltered bittorrent to roll over the minor advantages Comcast enjoys as an established player, please feel free to enter the market. But don't expect me to invest in your stock.

BTW, who will you be buying "raw bandwidth" from? Why do you imagine they will not violate neutrality to do nasty things?

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 years ago | (#29771183)

Net neutrality laws proposed to date have been concerned with what happens in the middle. None of them will do anything to solve the last mile natural monopoly.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (3, Insightful)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 5 years ago | (#29770573)

Some laws create freedom (even while taking it). The laws against murder give us the freedom to live by discouraging murder (or even merely punishing it).

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

value_added (719364) | about 5 years ago | (#29770577)

Until there are abuses, don't make laws.

So much for all those "There oughta be a law!" after-the-fact cries from folks who suffer injustice. ;-)

The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent.

That's a bit over-broad, doncha think? Assuming you mean "freedom" in a non-legal handwavy sense, I think you'd agree that laws against murder, theft, prohibitions against race discrimination, or consumer protection legislation protecting the public from unsafe foods or products don't restrict freedom.

Either way, I'd suggest your caught in a uniquely American and mostly mythical notion of frontier freedom. Governments in modern societies need to set some sort of public policy. That policy, in turn, is typically implemented by ... wait for it ... passing laws.

I do agree with your general sentiment about there being too many laws. The problem, I think, is that people are generally selfish or are otherwise assholes. They don't just refuse norms of good or common sense behaviour, they often go to great lengths to find loopholes in or ways around existing laws. That applies to the driver of a car who doesn't think it's worth his time to signal a lane change or slow down for a pedestrian, or a company discovering that bad behaviour can increase profits for its shareholders.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

jhfry (829244) | about 5 years ago | (#29771359)

Since you took the time, so will I.

A law's sole purpose is to restrict freedoms... in other words to move further from anarchy.

Sure many laws are necessary because without them society would crumble. However there should be as few laws as necessary to maintain a productive society.

If they try to write network neutrality laws, then they will essentially be writing a law that says what the carriers CAN do as much as they are writing what they CAN'T do. At least right now they are being governed by their customer's interests... once there are laws that say they can do something, they will.

Also, once there is a law, it can be changed. People are much less concerned with amendments to existing laws then new ones. So lets say that a NN law gets passed that prevents all forms of providers charging for access to particular websites. A little lobbying and they can get that amended, often as part of a unrelated bill, to allow them to do something we wouldn't like. Because the law was already in place, we actually made it easier for them to get what they want.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

virchull (963203) | about 5 years ago | (#29772547)

Until you are adequately informed, you should not comment on law or regulation. It seems you haven't heard about various ISP's (particularly Charter) shutting down Torrents when they detect the data flow. They also have throttled various other applications at times when their network is not busy, so it is not "network management". So there have been abuses. Wake up.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

diamondsw (685967) | about 5 years ago | (#29772717)

Except there have been plenty of abuses, and typically at the last mile where there is no competition. If your area is only served by one pipe, good luck "routing around" that.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Insightful)

bughunter (10093) | about 5 years ago | (#29770375)

Agreed. If bandwidth capacity becomes concentrated upon the same entities that are content providers, then the next logical step is the erection of barriers to competing content. It will be in their interest to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth, either through network architecture or legislation, so that they can monopolize the delivery medium, much in the same way that TV networks and Radio stations were able to because of the real scarcity in the open-air EM spectrum.

All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles. This is because the FCC has demonstrated its vulnerability to capture by the entities it's supposed to be regulating.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 5 years ago | (#29770623)

Agreed. If bandwidth capacity becomes concentrated upon the same entities that are content providers, then the next logical step is the erection of barriers to competing content.

I think you're misunderstanding what this article is talking about. It is about users of Google and other big content providers bypassing the tier 1 operators of the network core. There's no way Google can erect barriers to anyone but themselves in this scenario.

It will be in their interest to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth, either through network architecture or legislation, so that they can monopolize the delivery medium, much in the same way that TV networks and Radio stations were able to because of the real scarcity in the open-air EM spectrum.

There are already one cable provider and one phone line provider making a duopoly restricting access and introducing uncompetitive scarcity. And you're worried that Google and 29 other companies that provide about 30% of content are going to together exercise influence to create a new bottleneck? That's not particularly plausible or worrying.

All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.

I wish wifi made for a viable solution, but I don't think it does reliably enough. The engineer in me says hard wired cabling for big bandwidth transfers makes a lot more sense than the latency of many hops through a peer-to-peer system. It makes a lot more sense in my mind to follow the lead of other countries and implement net neutrality rules or even a socialized backbone to provide competition and prevent abuse of power.

This is because the FCC has demonstrated its vulnerability to capture by the entities it's supposed to be regulating.

This is because we allow corporations to lobby congresspersons and donate to campaign funds when there is no legitimate reason for them to do so.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 years ago | (#29771253)

Corporations can't donate to campaigns. Not directly at least.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

GigsVT (208848) | about 5 years ago | (#29771237)

That's not logical at all. Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet, and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them, people would scream bloody murder until they were removed.

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (1)

rodgster (671476) | about 5 years ago | (#29771529)

I wonder if most of the traffic to Microsoft occurs around the 2nd Tuesday of every month.

> Google, Microsoft, Facebook. Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30% of all Internet traffic.'

Re:more reason for the FCC's Internet neutrality r (4, Interesting)

geekmansworld (950281) | about 5 years ago | (#29770539)

Getting back on TOPIC...

Original poster is spot on. The big telecomms like to argue that a tiered internet, where big content providers pay extra for better transport, is necessary (nay, crucial) because that traffic produced by the content providers is consuming so much bandwidth that major infrastructure upgrades are needed.

Instead, we see that big content is handling much of the fat transport by itself. So it seems to me that content providers have stepped up to the plate in terms of managing their own bandwidth usage.

Time for big telecomm to shit down, shut up, and eat crow.

What do the ISP's have to say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770091)

It's always bothered me how much control ISP's have over the communication medium. I almost feel, in some ways, that internet access should be a utility as water or electricity is.

If the bulk (%?) of internet traffic no longer moves between ISP's, but instead between major corporations like Google, Limelight, Microsoft, Facebook, etc, then why are we paying 100% of the price to the ISP's?

network communication mediums should be made open for independent providers, like it used to be with dialup access. We should pay for a service plan to whatever ISP we choose (between what is best available and what we need/want), and a portion of that money should go to supporting whatever companies or organizations maintain the pathways, respectfully.

Re:What do the ISP's have to say? (1)

EndlessNameless (673105) | about 5 years ago | (#29770513)

then why are we paying 100% of the price to the ISP's?
 
Because your ISP runs and maintains the miles of cabling going from their backbone connection to your house?
 
They charge you for that connection. Google and others don't charge you for their content because it's more economical to let visitors come in free and charge advertisers for access to those visitors. Google uses that revenue to pays for its own network.
 
If you haven't already figured this out, I don't know what else to tell you.

  We should pay for a service plan to whatever ISP we choose (between what is best available and what we need/want), and a portion of that money should go to supporting whatever companies or organizations maintain the pathways, respectfully.
 
Building and maintaining the last-mile connection into your house is the greatest expense for ISPs. Once your data hits the routers in the CO, it's chump change to get it to the backbone/peering points. The "portion of that money" to maintain the pathway out to the house is actually the lion's share of the cost.
 
Yes, I have worked for a major ISP. Recently.

Exabytes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770133)

Whats more troubling to me is the fact that somebody has 256 exabytes of saved internet traffic. Is this not a concern for anybody else?

Re:Exabytes? (1)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | about 5 years ago | (#29770563)

It doesn't say that they saved the traffic, only that they drew from it. I'd imagine what they have is a higher level set of statistics based on usage data for 256 exabytes worth of traffic and not the actual bits representing say, the cybersex you had that you wouldn't want any one else to know about.

P2P (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770135)

But how can they use 30% of the bandwidth if the internet-melting evil P2P stuff already uses 473% of the bandwidth?

This article is obiously fake.

Tier-who? (-1)

dissy (172727) | about 5 years ago | (#29770159)

Seems to me a lot of the tier-1 providers stopped providing "internet" transit long ago, and now only provide transit to their customers (be it directly connected customers as per usual, or other web host services and data centers that are not real customers but are charged for the privileged. Go go gadget net neutrality!)

Once they decided for me and my ISP what traffic is allowed to reach me and what isn't, they stopped being tier-1 providers by any definition the networking industry uses.

It's no wonder customer carrying ISPs, and content providing hosts alike, are finding ways around this.

The only one downside to the lack of free market, is that even if most ISPs and providers peer directly and bypass the old tier-1 providers for most traffic, the government will assure the markets voice is not heard and keep those companies in business. Most of them are phone companies after all, and we already have provisions in law to pay phone companies that fail.

For all the idiots that think common carer status exists, that is one thing I wish really did exist for internet providers. Being smacked down with unreasonable penalties is the only way to get a corporation to abide by those laws and not screw over customers in the name of profits.

Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (4, Insightful)

tacokill (531275) | about 5 years ago | (#29770271)

This is a great example of how the free market works best. Years and years ago, we used to sit on /. and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers and their business practices. Fast-forward many moons and lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way. Imagine that!

So what do the content providers do? They simply route around the problem and do it themselves. Do they go complain to the government and ask for subsidies? No. Do they ask for new laws (that benefit them to the detriment of everyone else)? No.

This is exactly what should have happened in a capitalist economy.

For a bunch of internet geeks, I am surprised at how many anti-capitalists we have on this site. Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage. It used to be ruthlessly efficient back when we allowed companies to go bankrupt and customers to look elsewhere. Now that the government is into so many industries, I am not sure if that is the case anymore...but that is another discussion.

I, for one, welcome our new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers. They are shining example of what happens when a heavily regulated industry stops innovating and serving it's customers. Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be. That's the free market at work.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

lewiscr (3314) | about 5 years ago | (#29770495)

Years and years ago, we used to sit on /. and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers.... ...lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way.

I think you'll find that /. users are the Tier1's customers. Sure, not every /. user, but I bet /. has the highest percentage of users that are also Tier1 customers too.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (4, Insightful)

jlmale0 (1087135) | about 5 years ago | (#29770631)

An interesting analysis. However, I don't see the same conclusion. These content providers are routing around the Tier 1 providers because they're too big. Yes, it's the internet at work, routing around the inefficiencies, but not because of T1 business practices, but because they get better, cheaper service doing it themselves.

These aren't new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers. They're simply behemoths who've outgrown the playground. They're not reselling their access, they're providing bridges into the other silos. To me, this is a disheartening turn of events. While I don't see any of these companies cutting off access to the other silos (becoming AOL 2.0), they're locking up access in direct business-to-business agreements. If MS and Google decide to provide QoS on traffic X, or entirely block traffic Y, it's a matter between those two companies. Whereas, should a T1 provider do the same thing, we'd all be up in arms. Granted, The number of players makes these kinds of scenarios unlikely, but this direct linking starts to hide these kinds of concerns.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 years ago | (#29771113)

but not because of T1 business practices, but because they get better, cheaper service doing it themselves.
It is not because of their business practices but how their business operates, and people find cheaper and better alternatives. Bad business practices tend to create problems in the company making them vulnerable to competition.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about 5 years ago | (#29771869)

If the cost of pursuing such alternatives is buying thousands of miles of dark fiber all across the planet it's not an alternative open to very many.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

zappepcs (820751) | about 5 years ago | (#29770641)

Just a thought, capitalism is more like evolution than the Internet. It doesn't route around, it just allows bad ideas to fail. That said, the government(s) sometime stick their ho-ho grabbers in at the wrong places and we end up with life support systems woven into law for some business plans but not others. Evolution stops, and that's messing with nature man! Yes, I just compared Tier 1 providers to Frankenstein in a roundabout way. If the last mile was forced open so anyone can play, those 30 would easily be buying up Tier 1 providers for augmenting their business plan, which gives us a different set of problems. Such as 'how long can Google avoid being evil?'

Oh sure, if we get rid of lobbyists, stock holders, dumbass legislators, and a few greedy groups of sharks like the RIAA et al, all will be good. The trouble is that every time I check the magic 8 ball on this it answers in negative tones.... WITH ALL CAPS too. If capitalistic growth happens, how do we prevent ending up with simply a different and more complex set of problems?

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 5 years ago | (#29770645)

Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be.

But [...] child pornography [...] .

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

haxor.dk (463614) | about 5 years ago | (#29772287)

Your point being what exactly? That in absence of government regulation, everyone becomes a child pornographer? Or?

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (4, Interesting)

geekmansworld (950281) | about 5 years ago | (#29770689)

WELL said, sir.

I have plenty of gripes about capitalism. But yes, it is AWESOME to see it work the way it's supposed to. Content providers have protected their interests by making an investment in network infrastructure. And by doing so, it makes the internet, and internet-related industries at large, more competitive, diverse, and structurally robust.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770975)

And often times that route is solely for the benefit of the company or business, while often times at a huge cost years down the road to the consumer. I have a great idea, let me build the next iconic WiFi network (NetX) that allows Cell and PC's to use the frequency - only to find out that 5 years later it causes cancer, or impacts health somehow to the detrminent of tens of millions of Americans.
That's capitalism???? That's irresponsible and wrong. That's what's happening in our country - we've lost touch on the impact my invention and eventually my company might have on others - So what if plastic bottles contain chemicals that are carcinogenic? Getting water to millions who never had it is more important? Wait - who decided that for all of those folks.
Same can be applied here - lock it down, cap the profit and gains that can be made. You run the company to do it right, do it well and know what the impact is - not to simply cast a blind eye while you
sit back and count the dough!

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29771275)

That's why America has the lowest broadband availability of any modern country! We're number 26!

Who knows, one day our health care system might actually take care of everybody like in every other modern country. I wouldn't count on it but... capitalism sometimes means that you die if you are poor.

Insurance companies' massacre of the poor and middle class is really just a modern form of natural selection.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

houghi (78078) | about 5 years ago | (#29771621)

Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage.

Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage. A monopoly is damage.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

haxor.dk (463614) | about 5 years ago | (#29772257)

The biggest source of monopolies is irrefutably the government, not "capitalism", which is pretty much a bogeyman concept in most political discussions.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29772563)

Capitalism doesn't create a monopoly, in fact Capitalism is damaged by monopolies.

The Government providing subsidies to industries with large financial barriers to entry (such as an ISP) is what contributes to the problem. Whenever Government aids in a market, it no longer is Capitalism at work.

Capitalism is based on the assumption that people are greedy, therefore somebody, somewhere is going to find a way to make more money. In most markets this creates competition, however when we have a monopolistic industry, it needs to be held back with regulation since Capitalism can't self regulate in monopolistic industries.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

br00tus (528477) | about 5 years ago | (#29771881)

ARPAnet went online in 1969, and there was no legal commercial activity on it until 1992 (and all barriers to commercial activity did not fall until 1995). The creation and architecture of the Internet has nothing to do with the "free market" whatever that means (how is a market in the USA which uses dollars free while a market in the old USSR using rubles not free?). It has to do with two decades of massive taxpayer investment in research and development for the Internet, which from 1992 to 1995 was handed over to corporations.

It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent. I got on the Internet back when SRI-NIC was the root name server, I guess in the years ahead all of that will be washed away and the history of the creation of the Internet will be rewritten as a monument to free enterprise.

Re:Holy Fuck, the free market works! Imagine that (1)

haxor.dk (463614) | about 5 years ago | (#29772235)

You manage to miss the point of the parent completely.

Google, Facebook, Yahoo! Oh My! (1)

Mekkah (1651935) | about 5 years ago | (#29770339)

This seems like common sense to me... I mean anyone want to raise there hand if their homepage isn't on that top 30 list (other than /. or blank).

Re:Google, Facebook, Yahoo! Oh My! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770819)

I mean anyone want to raise there hand if their homepage [...]

Really?

No, really?

In one sentence? When both have the same meaning?

Really?

Because, seriously, dude, I'm impressed that you somehow found a way to get out of bed this morning without your finger picking your brain out through your nose.

OMFG!Call the EFF! Google Peers with Facebook! (1)

wsanders (114993) | about 5 years ago | (#29770893)

Quick, call the EFF! Google peers with Facebook! I have a constitutional right for all my Google-to-Facebook packets to transit some 3rd party carrier!

Moreover, a lot of the 900-lb gorillas of the Internet have colocation operations in the same building, so peering is largely a matter of just tossing a cable over a partition or two.

consume about 30% of all Internet traffic (1)

Chas (5144) | about 5 years ago | (#29770411)

That's like saying that each of 4 hotdog vendors outside of a baseball game "consume" 25% of the hotdogs served.

They're fulfilling requests by outside agencies (users) made INTO their services.

The users are the ones "consuming" the traffic.

This kind of stupidity in language use just makes the desk so much more attractive to my forehead.

Why does everyone think this restricts freedom? (1)

drtsystems (775462) | about 5 years ago | (#29770721)

Everyone is getting all up in arms here yelling OMG GOOGLE IS GOING TO RESTRICT MY INTERNETZ! Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this is saying is when I do a google search in Europe, instead of it using a tier1 backbone to access google's servers in america, there is a data center somewhere in europe, owned by google, which processes the request and communicates over google's own undersea cables (or rented bandwidth on it as it almost certainly is). How exactly does this restrict anyone's freedom?

Random numbers (2, Interesting)

eison (56778) | about 5 years ago | (#29770765)

Wasn't there a study that 80 to 95% of all traffic was bittorrent?
And now 30% of all traffic is big sites like Google?
This math doesn't add up. I think they're just making stuff up.

Re:Random numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29771433)

You didn't know???

73.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Random numbers (1)

acohen1 (1454445) | about 5 years ago | (#29772177)

It never adds up. These numbers all always pulled out of someone or something's ass. They have no fracking idea how much traffic crosses the internet, where its going, where it came from, and what it is. No idea.

Remember what happened to our USA Data tunnels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29770771)

We sold them - yep, we couldn't keep the connections somewhere with a USA-based company, so, they were sold to some other country overseas. Now (you may not remember this) but that same line that also feeds Africa was severed or damaged about a month or two ago - the countries affected practically had to shut down. What's even more scary is that backbone runs all of our defense and military connections to name just a few minor important items, isn't owned by us. So, nothing is really "sacred" and we certainly don't own anything when it comes to the pipe you enjoy while sitting on your coach, chatting on Vent, and playing WOW on worldwide servers. At any moment that could all come crashing down - and what giant corporations have done is to position themselves to hold the strings. Just as we've abandoned 'free' radio ages ago, the same perhaps will happen with the Internet and we'll soon have "classes" of internet quality - if you want better speed, better choices, then buy our premium package. Keep in mind, not too long ago, and with a normal 50' antenna, one could enjoy TV in the comfort of that cabin in the woods.
Today - that is not possible in many areas.

/. summary says it all... (1)

yet-another-lobbyist (1276848) | about 5 years ago | (#29771375)

It's funny how the entire article doesn't say much more than the summary. Adding the comments here, slashdot has more info on the story than the original article...
Nerds rule! (I always knew we do.)

As an engineer at a Tier 2 ISP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29771379)

I think the move toward direct connections between ISPs and content providers (called "peering" in the biz) is great. For one thing, we save a ton of money that we were paying for bandwidth to our Tier 1 providers. Also, your traffic goes through less hops, making troubleshooting easier and (possibly) speeding up the time it takes for the packets to get from point A to point Z.

As to whether Google/Microsoft/Facebook's dominance is a good or bad thing... it doesn't really matter. It's not like direct peering between networks will prevent you from getting to smaller networks that your ISP does not peer with. We will continue to purchase bandwidth from the Tier 1s to get to any other places on the Interwebs.

KillerNapalm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29771811)

Ummm... well.... sure the Internet has become more a peering relationship between smaller networks instead through large overlying providers, but the article states that its moving toward content providers such as Google and Microsoft. Sure an enormous amount of traffic comes from these companies, but who connects these companies to the world??? The answer is still Tier 1 ISPs. Google and Microsoft don't run fiber throughout the world and drop it off at your house.

This mistake is somewhat understandable though. When people think about the Internet they think of the content... Google, Microsoft, Youtube... they don't think about the actual transport, but still on a site that is supposed to be technical in nature I'd expect better.

People are finally getting it! (1)

thule (9041) | about 5 years ago | (#29772561)

I have been making this point forever. There was an article years ago that stated that Yahoo! was only being charged for half of its Internet costs. In other words, only half of their traffic at the time travelled over a transit link. The other half of their traffic travelled over peering links to ISP's with large subscriber numbers. They wanted to get their content to eye balls in the least expensive and most efficient way. This should be normal business on the Internet. Transit links can cost serious money. If a large ISP can peer with a large content provider it save both parties lots of money. So is this a violation of net neutrality rules? I certainly hope not! All traffic is being treated equally. If the ISP's transit link it being filled up with P2P traffic, it may seem to the user that Yahoo! is getting preferred treatment. Is it? For all of you worrying that peering means that only large content providers like Yahoo! get quick access to users, note that large hosting companies also peer to ISP's. You don't have to be a large web site to take advantage of the peering.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?