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!

Netflix and Google Make Land Grab On Edge of Internet

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the thar-be-gold-in-them-thar-datacenters dept.

Google 85

An anonymous reader writes "In an end-run around slow Internet backbone providers, Netflix and Google (plus a dozen more large content giants) are in a bitter fight to deploy servers and dominate the consumer edge of the Internet. This Wired article provides some of the first graphics of this fight and how it is changing the underlying Internet infrastructure. The source of the article (DeepField blog post) also has some pretty interesting commentary."

cancel ×

85 comments

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

Important Matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268219)

Q: A knee-grow and a beaner are both sitting in a car. Who's driving?
A: The cops.

I'm on the edge of the toilet bowl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268231)

making a dookie

basically vertical integration with CDNs (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268277)

As the article notes, from an internet-topology standpoint this isn't that new, dating back to Akamai-type CDNs starting in the 1990s. The idea is that you mirror your content inside several of the major edge networks, so e.g. Comcast users get served from the Comcast-local mirror. You then update the mirror whenever there's new content, but every single user doesn't have to re-fetch that video over the public internet to Comcast's network.

The main difference is that some of the large content providers are building out their own private CDNs, so Google is setting up its own edge-network mirrors instead of contracting out to Akamai. That's not a major technical change, but could have some important implications for competition.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268323)

There could be some implications, but I don't think it's that bad. Akamai isn't going anywhere, they actually never delivered Netflix, and have had only limited business with Google, so it's not like they're "losing" anything. So if a competitor to any Google or Netflix comes along, they'll have the option of using Akamai until they're big enough for their own CDN, if that's actually the direction things are headed. On top of that, I would not be surprised if the day comes when Google starts offering its CDN as a service, which will actually add competition for Akamai.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268341)

Yeah, I agree with that. Google and Netflix are basically moving a commodity service in-house, which often makes sense once you're using enough of it. But others can continue to use the commodity service, as long as it continues to exist, which it looks like it will.

If anything, the basic way bandwidth is billed and peering agreements are arranged is a bigger problem for small players than the edge caches this story is trying to get us worried about. The first problem someone is going to have if they try to compete with YouTube is not CDN access, but the fact that they would have to pay for bandwidth, whereas in many cases Google doesn't. For example, I work at a university, and our university network has a peering agreement with Google: that means that all YouTube watching by students is free to Google. A YouTube-competitor startup would have to pay for transit.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268673)

It's not so much that Google gets a reduced price, but that your uni gets a reduced price. Google only sees it as an investment to expand their network, not as a way to directly save money.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268715)

Greetings, False Programmer. I am one of the True Old Ones. I am a True Programmer! Long, long ago, I returned to Gamemakerdom! That is what you must do if you wish to become a True Programmer!

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (3, Insightful)

SunTzuWarmaster (930093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269819)

Your use of the word 'free' is misplaced. This is vertical integration, plain and simple. In the early 1900s, Andrew Carnegie controlled the iron ore, steel manufacturing (made of iron), railroad tracks (made of steel), and railroad cars (to ship iron to manufacturing/selling, and steel for selling).

You wouldn't say that the iron was 'free' to Carnegie Steel because they owned the mines, would you? Content provisioning won't be 'free' to Google, as they have to buy/maintain the servers.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40272339)

Content provisioning won't be 'free' to Google, as they have to buy/maintain the servers.

buy/maintaining the servers is "free" (or rather, as good as free) if the result of doing so saves sufficiently more money than the price of purchase+maintenance.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268501)

Actually, yes they do. From the article, netflixed used 3 CDN including akamai which evenly had traffic at about 33%. After it's deployment, other CDNs usage dropped to less then 10% for each while netflixed cdn accounted for 77.6%.

Will this effect akamai? Maybe but probably not too big, from the opinion of the blog post.

"Most CDNs would rather focus on higher value (and more profitable) services like analytics, acceleration, and DRM (e.g. see recent CDN product announcements)" from the blog post.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (5, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268349)

You can look up peering details at peeringdb [peeringdb.com] . It's kind of neat.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (2)

seanzig (834642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268357)

Agreed, not a major change. However, it might indeed affect competition. I'm glad AT&T has found a way to make money by helping large companies improve bandwidth rather than imposing a tiered system and effectively reducing service delivery for those who couldn't afford it. This attempt at a tiered internet sparked the net neutrality "movement" (if it qualifies as a movement, as such). The idea of private CDN's certainly is a more "positive" approach, but I do wonder if it introduces a precedent that allows companies to buy improved features to improve content delivery. I can imagine a tiered internet growing gradually and organically in such a way.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (3, Informative)

thereitis (2355426) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268763)

That's not a major technical change, but could have some important implications for competition.

I think that's the biggest reason for this change: They need to stay competitive with companies that don't have to pay for bandwidth. See Netflix is a bandwidth hog. Who will pay? (Hint: You.) [cnn.com]

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268865)

WRONG, you are already paying for all the bandwidth you are using through your $20 - $50 monthly flat rate subscription, content providers should not have to pay anything on top of that some people even suggest that they should be paid by your ISP, the problem is your ISP even with earning millions, or even billions dollars wants more money and is trying to find ways to get bigger part of cookie (check what comcast is doing)

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269067)

What they "should" have to pay is irrelevant; the reality is that (right now) they do have to pay for bandwidth unless they make deals like this.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (2)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40270369)

Of course Netflix pays for it's bandwidth, he wasn't arguing that. Netflix pays for its connection to the internet and the customer pays for their connection. As long as everyone pays for their connection, there is no reason to say Netflix is "hogging" the bandwidth, which is what Comcast is trying to say.

Re:basically vertical integration with CDNs (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269803)

As much as I also dislike Comcast, there is no sin in optimizing efficiency by moving frequently accessed data closer to the end user - improving the experience as well as cutting costs. It's the right thing to do.

The case for net neutrality (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269005)

That's not a major technical change, but could have some important implications for competition.

Yes, specifically that it'll fragment the entire network and potentially destroy interoperability across it. The internet would no longer be a unified global network. Network neutrality is the key to preventing this, but as we've seen, corporations don't want that: They want to turn the internet into a largely read-only media... just a better version of television.

A classic example of how this is shaping up is with Comcast, the Great Evil of the USA internet: They recently instituted a 250GB transfer limit, and then exempted Hulu from it, which they bought out. Netflix, a competing service at a lower price is now sitting out in the cold. Let's run some numbers and see how much of a problem this is. The average person watches 2.7 hours of TV per day; and it remains the single largest leisure activity in the United States. The average Netflix stream (based on my experience), is about 350KB/s. So that comes out to about 3.24GB per person, per day -- or 98.82 per month (the average length of a month). Now the number of people per household is a bit shaky, since there aren't any current numbers, but it's around 2.6 people per. So the average household will consume 257 GB per month if they used Netflix.

How strange that the bandwith cap is almost exactly the same number eh? Make no mistake -- this is a war between big business, and the only losers will be you and me. This is what happens when you let people into public positions who entertain the notion that capitalism runs best when it isn't regulated. Every infrastructure service in this country runs better with regulation, and the internet (telecommunications) is not an exception. Every time we let the private sector take over, we get crap like Standard Oil, AT&T (pre-breakup), Microsoft, etc. And now we have Montsano eating up our food supply (literally).

If network neutrality isn't given the force of law in the next two years, then two things are going to happen: Either we start building tunneled networks so all traffic through the last mile ISPs is encrypted and cannot be shaped, modified, or tampered with except in terms of bandwidth and latency as a whole... or we abandon the internet and start a new network that has no last mile restrictions (read: wireless, read: pirate radio).

Re:The case for net neutrality (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40270081)

So... CDNs are(?) turning the internet into a read only mechanism ----> Corporations are eeeevil -----> Bandwidth caps!!!! are super eeeevil. May I asked how the hell did you get modded up? Your comment isn't really even technically correct, and this site is allegedly full of geeks (people that like to know how stuff works.)

Re:The case for net neutrality (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40270543)

Slashdot is about 50% geeks these days, the other 50% are whiney technophopbic whiney pants as you can see evidenced here.

Want better network topology? WHAAAAA!!!

Sorry technophobic baby-man! We'll make the networks suck for everyone equally so you feel better.

Re:The case for net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40270913)

It also seems to be .00001% "guys who spend their days trolling political threads on digg" as well. Don't miss out on that key demographic.

Re:The case for net neutrality (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40271265)

the other 50% are whiney technophopbic whiney pants as you can see evidenced here.

This quote courtesy of one of Slashdot's most fanatical apple fanboys, and probably typed up on an ipad 3.

The irony is probably lost on him -- like most coddled, precious, home-schooled aspies, that level of reflection is more than he's capable of. As a pathetic, mewling manchild, the best he can do when confront by vague feelings of self-doubt is to buy another shiny iToy. What a thoroughly useless life.

Re:The case for net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40272299)

Soooo then, one of the technophobes mentioned I take it? OH NOES HE TYPED ON TEH IPADSSS!!!!

Jesus H. Christ on a cracker.

Re:The case for net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40270865)

Regulation will not work.

Here's a recent lecture on Marx and the current economic crisis from Richard Wolff, an economics professor at UMASS Amherst. There is a part that explains why attempting to regulat the people with the profits cannot be done under our current model.

http://marxscapitalblog.blogspot.ca/2008/10/crisis-lecture.html

Re:The case for net neutrality (1)

pnutjam (523990) | more than 2 years ago | (#40279587)

I'd like to see some citations. As far as I know, Hulu is not exempt, only xfinity's video on xbox service is exempt. Plus, the 250GB cap has been around for several years now. AT&T is the new one in the cap business. I run alot of network services, home NX server, netflix all day long (via wii, so not HD) and I am only hitting 150GB / month.
I am troubled by the implications of capping, but let's keep the discussion grounded in reality.

I miss Ma Bell (4, Interesting)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268279)

If you look at the upper right corner of the building in TFA's picture, you can see the shadow of the old Bell System logo.

Re:I miss Ma Bell (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268547)

If you look at the upper right corner of the building in TFA's picture, you can see the shadow of the old Bell System logo.

I don't mis Ma Bell at all, because I can remember paying in the neighborhood of a dollar per minute for interstate toll calls, and that was in 1970's dollars. The telecom industry is reconsolidating and has what is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington. Any way you look at it, that's bad. This twist is just as bad for smaller "web sites". Once the big players have moved all their stuff to their own servers near the edge, Akamai et all will be hurting. That's bad too.

Re:I miss Ma Bell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269059)

i remember recording tones on a mini cassette voice recorder and getting free calls to anywhere.

Re:I miss Ma Bell (0)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269381)

The telecom industry is reconsolidating and has what is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington

OK, I'll argue. I don't think the telecom industry's lobbying holds a candle to either the banking industry or the insurance industry.

Re:I miss Ma Bell (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40271145)

How much of your life is data? How much of that data goes through the network of your bank and insurance company? Which banks and insurance companies siphoned your data and supplied it to the NSA in violation of US law? Which companies had to be "retroactively" absolved of any legal liability for breaking that law?

No. Telecom has much more influential lobbying since telecom is the bitch the government want's to have in it's bed. Information is power. With the correct access to information, I could put you in jail, make you rich, make you poor, and even kill you.

Be afraid. Be very afraid...

Re:I miss Ma Bell (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274669)

Banks compete, more or less, in every market. So do insurance companies, more or less. The telecom's, in particular the ILEC's, do not because they enjoy a government sanctioned, nay, mandated monopoly.
Not that the banksters don't swing a big dick, but it's influence comes from a rather different vector than conventional "lobbying".

Re:I miss Ma Bell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268611)

You miss ma bell? Seriously?? That's like having a 10 pound cancerous tumor excised and whining that you wish you still had it...

Re:I miss Ma Bell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269955)

LOL.. I'm sure if you look close enough, you might even find the faded remains of Worldcomm, NYNEX, GTE and possibly a baby Bell up there too.

"changing the underlying Internet infrastructure" (5, Interesting)

asshole felcher (2655639) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268281)

Seems a bit dramatic. Google and Netflix use enough bandwidth that they can set up their own CDN. End of Story. If a small competitor comes along, they won't have the money to set up their own CDN, but LLNW, Akamai, and Level3 won't turn them down.

Re:"changing the underlying Internet infrastructur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268461)

Won't they be recording this traffic on their servers. If anything the story down plays the problem. And you're downplaying it even more.

Re:"changing the underlying Internet infrastructur (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268509)

Huh?

Re:"changing the underlying Internet infrastructur (1)

cynyr (703126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40281649)

instead of having Akamai, or level3 record it for them? I'm confused what are on about? Seems like a non story to me. Big high bandwidth company moves some of it's bandwidth to the edges.

I'd bet that each netflix end doesn't have the full catalog, but just the most popular 500 things or something like that. They may even be doing something like that 1-2 second "start loading the movie but call it instant" on the most popular 10-15 is because they can get 5-10 requests for it in the same second and start all of those clients at the same time to save disk bandwidth.

Re:"changing the underlying Internet infrastructur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268707)

Google has been at it for years. They've been buying up dark fiber and peering directly with regional and even local-only players in markets across the US for something like 6 years. This article makes it sound like there's something new about that. I guess it would be like saying Gmail is new. It's not.

This metric saddens me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268305)

From the blog:

Our most recent data finds that more than 70% of all Internet traffic (on average) comes from just 150 CDN, hosting, cloud and content companies.

For many Internet users it is essentially now Television Mark 2.

Re:This metric saddens me (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268773)

Why? The CDNs serve cache for almost everybody. Half of that is probably video cache from the top 3 porn vendors. Would you prefer the long range transports clogged instead? That's bad design.

Re:This metric saddens me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268849)

Is it hell.
TV is crap because there is a small number of large people involved in it.
This time, internet is actually massively opposite.

TV isn't even anywhere near as complex.
There is a handful of content hosters, such as cable companies, satellite, etc. And most of them are corrupt as high-hell.
Without them, people can easily just go to standard terrestrial distro route.
Of course, the number of groups involved in TV is far less in this case, but there would still end up being a choking point where there is simply too much information to transmit in the allotments of frequency without corruption of signal.
Without most of those CDNs, the internet would blackhole all over the place, servers dying, bandwidth drying up, companies dying out and generally using the internet becoming far more expensive to run.
Caching servers are possibly the best outcome of the internet since its inception. The next will be full IPv6 switchover for main operations.

Search Listing Problem (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 2 years ago | (#40271997)

That's largely because you cannot acheive a search listing as a leaf node. If you don't point outward from you site you are judged to have no value.

This becomes a black-body radiation problem, New conent can go onto the radiant surface anywhere, but it gets lost in the geography becasue if that new content isn't part of a site containing a massive number of outbound links (usually ads and the "natrual link farm" of, say, youtube video pages having links to other youtube video pages) then your site is "beneath notice".

So as users are added to the net in general, their content can only be recognized if it is in a "big" site.

A "big" site is, of course, a place that is super easy to get lost within, so the problem becomes "lather-rinse-repeat" for each content subdomain.

The calm, quiet voice that only speaks when it has something to say, must therefore remain unheard for the din of people shouting for attention.

There's an XKCD commic (isn't there always) where the "two pundits" (Ender's siblings) from Ender's Game get the treatment they -would- -really- receive on the internet as opposed to the rarified treatment required for the plot point(s) to work. 8-)

The internet -must- fracture becasue valuable content is opposed by hucksterism. It won't colapse but "sites" will evolve into subnets, in the darknet sense, jsut to recover the signal-to-noise ratio needed for discourse.

That leaves the vast majority of people "just watching" for any context or content. So yes, TV mark 2.

Re:This metric saddens me (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274325)

There has always been many many more consumers than producers of content. Cache that read-only static data closer to the consumer.

Why don't they...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268335)

Use BitTorrent? I'm sure they could wrap some DRM in there too. Having consumer to consumer video streaming would be handy. Also allows for extreme localisation. If my neighbour has been watching something I want...

Re:Why don't they...? (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268533)

I don't think BitTorrent delivers bits in a way that they can be streamed. I believe you get random chunks. Could be wrong it has been awhile sense I used BitTorrent.

Re:Why don't they...? (3, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268981)

The actual protocol is agnostic - the client can ask for whatever chunk he wants. Most clients follow a (seemingly) random pattern, but nowadays uTorrent has a button you can click to prioritize the first blocks, so that you can start watching the movie while it's still downloading.

Re:Why don't they...? (1)

gottabeme (590848) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269091)

A client could request chunks in order. The issue becomes the latter parts of the file being less available than the earlier parts, especially if people don't watch/download the whole thing, or if they don't seed for very long.

I can't blame people for not seeding much--at least, many people. My ISP (AT&T DSL) has decreased service by adding bandwidth caps and raised rates, to boot. I've never had faster than 5 Mbps/768 Kbps Internet access (poor me), but some people have 30+ Mbps access with multi-megabit upload speeds. Some areas are improving, but others are regressing! Can you imagine if electric or telephone service went down in availability but up in price, long-term? Has that even happened in history?

Oh, and according to City Hall, AT&T (the phone company) is not a utility--it's a "business", so they can do whatever they want.

So much for progress.

Re:Why don't they...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40270421)

When I get my 50/50 fiber for $90 next year, I'll be willing to seed. Or should I just go for the 100/100 for $200?

Re:Why don't they...? (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40273065)

While here the service has actually improved over the years (which, as you say, is what you'd expect), I got a VPS in the Netherlands with 300GB/month and 1Gbps up/down (burst) for less than $3/month and now I do all my seeding from there (as well as using it for my email server, hosting some very low traffic websites, etc).

Re:Why don't they...? (1)

gottabeme (590848) | more than 2 years ago | (#40304631)

Wow, that's twice my home bandwidth cap. Would you share the URL for them please?

Re:Why don't they...? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40306717)

OK, with the caveats that I'm not affiliated and I've owned the VPS for less than a month, so it's not my fault if they fuck up ;)

Oh, and it only has 7GB of disk. It's enough for me since I delete the stuff constantly (and with that upload speed, I always get a ratio greater than 3), but it's limited.
You can get 10GB more, but it's $3.7 per month - more than a new VPS!

So yeah, if you can live with that, they seem fine. If not, check http://www.lowendbox.com/ [lowendbox.com] that's where I found them.

Finally, Netherlands for 7â ($8.7) per 3 months: https://clients.inceptionhosting.com/cart.php?a=confproduct&i=3 [inceptionhosting.com]

Re:Why don't they...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268897)

VERY suboptimal, bittorrent is MUCH harder to cache (not impossible but savings are smaller) so amount of miles of fiber your data (video or whatever) needs to pass trough is on average much higher with torrent when compared with CDN (with CDN your video will in majority of cases come from your ISP servers and go through few tens of kilometers of optics and with bittorrent parts of video file might even come from other side of world, from australia for example)

Re:Why don't they...? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269047)

Why would BT be harder to cache for a Bittorrent-aware cache?

And obviously you wouldn't have a pure BT solution that had to get its data from "the other side of the world", you'd have an hybrid solution with a location filter on the BT client and an HTTP fallback.

Re:Why don't they...? (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 2 years ago | (#40271813)

Bittorrent practically is a cache. I bet you could just adjust it to prefer peers with nearby IP addresses.

Net neutrality (2)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268433)

Does this provide any leverage to help insure net neutrality by taking some power away from the core backbones, or is it moot since ISPs still reign supreme by providing that last mile connectivity?

Re:Net neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40268791)

Quite the contrary, the article specifically states 'The business they’re in isn’t delivering bits anymore. It’s delivering content.'

Re:Net neutrality (2)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40270449)

Core backbone has no problem. Prices are cheap and lots of competition, the issue is the last mile. Local caching is just an efficiency thing. With the HUGE growth of streaming, local caches will take some of the bite out of the growth pain. There are quite a few long-haul high speed 500Gb+ fiber techs around the corner, but they're not quite here yet. Your only options for high speed trunks is expensive equipment or lots of 10Gb fiber. CDNs are going to give us that breathing room while waiting for the new tech to become affordable.

Re:Net neutrality (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40271517)

Not true. Telcos have major problems with core backbone traffic. Services like Netflix jump around from provider to provider to get the cheapest rate. If Netflix has a 10gig trunk to level3, telcos will enter a peering agreement with level3 to get a cheaper rate because such a large amount of traffic comes from Netflix. But when netflix drops that trunk and picks one up somewhere else to save money the telcos are left with way to much bandwidth on one network and not enough on another. Suddenly netflix customers have bandwidth issues where they hadn't before, and blame it on their ISP.

The last mile is a bigger problem, but it's not the only problem. As long as services like netflix entice people to all peg their connections at the same time of day, we're going to have this net neutrality problem issue. I think the ISPs would be much more likely to support net neutrality if these types of services had some sort of incentive to consider their affect on the network as a whole. Unfortunately every suggestion I've heard so far pretty much breaks net neutrality or involves taxing the internet. All of which are bad.

Translation (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 2 years ago | (#40272015)

We need to have bandwith pricing based on pipe size and not bits delivered per time period.

Of course since that would make every link symmetric there would be no chash-flow pressure.

Which is why internet connectivity should be a public good monopoly and not a competetive business.

The model itself, which was created once people started "charging for site access" and then the bandwith providers decided they wanted a piece of that action, is unsustainable because the Dance of the Sugar-Plumb CDN Providers requires the gateway agreements to churn if any money is to be made, but that churn is "considered harmful" to the gateway owners...

Yep, your capitalism dollar at work.

Restore the advertising ban on the internet, so that everything has to be pure content.

What a world! 8-)

Re:Net neutrality (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40274623)

Actually, it's a bit different than what you're saying.

Netflix used to use Akamai, but then Level3 under-bid them. Akamai is a local cache CDN while Level3 is a Tier1 back-bone that uses it's massive cheap trunks to compete. It is cheaper for Level3 to deliver Netflix over the back-bone than for Akamai to cache the data locally. Akamai is still useful because not all Netflix customer's ISPs have peering with L3.

Because Level3 is acting as a CDN in the case of Netflix, this means all of the cost of Netflix traffic via L3 is borne by Netflix. If Netflix traffic is hitting an L3 peer, that peer will not have Netflix traffic count towards them.

So in the case of my ISP who uses Level3 as their upstream, Netflix traffic is free and does not count towards their 95th percentile billing. This is good because on average, ~30% of an ISPs bandwidth during peak is Netflix.

As long as services like netflix entice people to all peg their connections at the same time of day

I didn't realize 4Mb streams are "pegging" 30Mb connections.

According to Level3 engineer blogs, the cheapest and most effective form of QoS is bandwidth. At least for big players like L3, upgrading connections is much cheaper than having hardware that can route and QoS at the speeds they handle. L3 also claims the prices they offer their clients are low enough that bandwidth is almost always cheaper than QoS.

BBC has done this for iPlayer for a long time (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268471)

i.e. putting servers into ISPs to save on everyone's bandwidth bill. Not so much a land grab, just a way of mutually reducing costs.

Re:BBC has done this for iPlayer for a long time (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268661)

Actually that changed in 2008, when the Beeb shifted larger content from the Akamai CDN to direct delivery over a peering agreement with Level3, causing much outrage amongst smaller ISPs.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/bbc_cdn_isps_level3/ [theregister.co.uk]

The Good News... (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268667)

...is that if content is mirrored inside your provider's network, it's frequently unmetered and thus doesn't count towards your monthly bandwidth limit...

Re:The Good News... (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269891)

Not. The hosted content is with BGP peering. Even though it is often on local 10gb links, it is still seen as a peer outside of your ISP. See NetFlix [netflix.com]

Edge? (2)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268693)

The Internet has an edge? How can that be, the world is a sphere. (And theres no real final frontier of the internet in space yet,.

Re:Edge? (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268781)

Lighten up. It's a fractal edge, so it's everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

Re:Edge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269157)

"Lighten up?" The parent was obviously kidding :)

Re:Edge? (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40270971)

Obviously, me too.

Bitter? (4, Insightful)

JamesRing (1789222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268703)

I don't like it when healthy competition between two companies in a capitalist system is described as a "bitter fight" or "war", "battle", etc. It's sensationalist journalism and it completely mischaracterizes the nature of the healthy competition which is necessary for innovation to occur.

Message from beyond our known civilization (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268799)

"...it could possibly bring down subscription rates for high speed internet, subsidized by the content providers."

I would like to visit his planet. It sounds nice.

Re:Message from beyond our known civilization (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40272369)

I would like to visit his planet. It sounds nice.

Content providers will have to subsidize, and fees/limits for accessing non-subsidizing content providers will be to the customer's disadvantage.

High speed subscription rates will be increased "Because see, we have better connectivity to Google, we're providing you a better service, you should pay more"

Quote from the article (1, Flamebait)

Wingman 5 (551897) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268933)

This could help companies like Netflix get high definition video to consumers, and it could possibly bring down subscription rates for high speed internet, subsidized by the content providers.

BWHAHAHAHA!

Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh.

pipes pipes pipes (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269015)

This isn't what this article is about, but this story reminds me that I would love to see some corporation, say Google, challenge the growing hegemony of telecoms and cable TV companies owning the Internet.

If we're going to go through all the trouble of building an Internet to replace TV and land line telephones (among other things) then it doesn't make any sense to hand the whole thing over to telecoms and cable companies.

Remember how all of a sudden all those small local ISPs just up and disappeared? We once had tons of choices for Internet connectivity, now we've got a choice of maybe three corporations, all of whom hate us.

Re:pipes pipes pipes (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#40270261)

It doesn't make sense to hand the whole thing to Google and a handful of other CDN companies.

        dZ.

Re:pipes pipes pipes (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40272429)

Remember how all of a sudden all those small local ISPs just up and disappeared? We once had tons of choices for Internet connectivity, now we've got a choice of maybe three corporations, all of whom hate us.

It's mostly about access to inexpensive pipes into subscribers homes. Before DSL/Cable technologies were developed, access was with dial-up modem, access to the subscribers was easy and inexpensive through POTS service, which is available at a flat rate, thanks to government regulations.

Cable and telephone services are natural monopolies, due to the high cost of infrastructure buildout. In most areas, there is a local Franchising agreement between cable companies, utilities, and the government, so competitors are not even legally allowed to build a plant, let-alone offer service.
Neither cable nor DSL are conducive to competitive providers.

Because there are no regulations requiring Cable companies to provide access to provide network service over their system; internet service over the Cable is only going to be available from the Cable company, period.

As for DSL... well.l... ILECs were required to provide unbundled access by CLECs. The telcos charge the provider a cost so high, that they can't competitively offer a DSL-based Internet service through the telco's lines.

In some areas, Naked DSL is offered by the ILEC. Several of them charge more for the Naked DSL line than it would cost to buy Telephone AND DSL service from the telco on the same line.

So what's happened here, is the telcos have priced their product so that there is not sufficient profit in competing with them to sustain a business.

You can't offer a competing option if there's no way to sustain a business that does it.

Re:pipes pipes pipes (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40276455)

In some areas, Naked DSL is offered by the ILEC

ILECs have been disappearing at a pretty high rate. AT&T does not generally negotiate in good faith with them, and the rules for offering naked DSL are stringent. I think there about 1/2 as many ILECs as there were in 2006.

Re:pipes pipes pipes (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40278505)

ILECs have been disappearing at a pretty high rate. AT&T does not generally negotiate in good faith with them

Huh? ATT is the ILEC at many exchanges.

Flying Monkeys (1)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269041)

So Netflix is starting to use its army of Flying Cloud Monkeys [wired.com] as a Content Delivery Network? No wonder the DVDs weren't making it to my mailbox!

Bring Down Subscription Rates (1)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269181)

..., and it could possibly bring down subscription rates for high speed internet, ...

Yeah, I don't see that statement as being true. Large web companies will only provide their on-site servers to large ISPs. The large ISPs have no reason to or history of reducing their subscription rates. If the servers were provided to smaller ISPs (such as GWI), then they could lower their rates and become more competitive. Maybe if the servers were provided to tier 2 peering networks, they could pass on the savings to small ISPs? I don't know enough about tiers or peering to know if that's a possibility.

so regular CDNs are failing in the marketplace (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40269501)

that is all this is really saying. If they were making their Customers happy and standing up for their interests like net neutrality then they would not be moving to protect their businesses.

Consolidate your data to a distrubuted cloud! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269897)

New buzzword coming "the clouds", it differs from "the cloud". Now you can cut costs and increase productivity by combining all of your current distributed loads and resources into a distributed system. Your were distributed before and you'll still be distributed after but now you are in "the clouds" so it will be cheaper and easier to maintain.

Google & Netflix Doomed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40270479)

Wait, Google and Netflix aren't relying on the cloud? They are in-housing their content distribution? They're buying/owning hardware?

Don;t they realize how stupid they are being? Don't they realize that everybody is using the cloud now.

Boy are they going to be embarrassed when they realize their mistake.

Netflix sends CDs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40270929)

Since when did Netflix send people CDs?

Xenophobic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40278365)

Yawn. USA != World.

I've seen my edge of the Internet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40283049)

...and it sucks. This development is no more annoying or significant than Akamai deploying content caching servers back in 1999. Seriously, how is this news? Right, I get it. Data centers and peering points only have so much real estate to let out. And we all know that no one anywhere, ever, will build another data center or peering point ever again. Sheesh. Move on.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?