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!

Google Now Serves 25% of North American Internet Traffic

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the bow-to-the-google dept.

Google 84

sturgeon writes "Wired Magazine claims today that Google is now 25% of the North American traffic with a mostly unreported (and rapidly expanding), massive deployment of edge caching servers in almost every Internet provider around the world. Whether users are directly using a Google service (i.e. search, YouTube) or the devices are automatically sending data (e.g. Google Analytics, updates), the majority of end devices around the world will now send traffic to Google server during the course of an average day. It looks like Wired based their story on a report from cloud analytics and network management company DeepField."

cancel ×

84 comments

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

Blame ISPs (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44351635)

Can you imagine the explosion in Internet traffic if ISP customers were allowed to host servers?

Re:Blame ISPs (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44351859)

You might want to clarify what you mean - presumably residential customers. After all, most businesses and colo facilities are ISP customers as well.

Re:Blame ISPs (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44351945)

Unfortunately is not that much, because most people would not know how to appropiately configure them, or be afraid, or should be afraid because depend on insecure software anyway. But would be a way to regain some privacy for most, hosting their own mail server, owncloud or similar solutions, and hosting their own web based software.

Re:Blame ISPs (1)

xrmb (2854715) | about a year ago | (#44352061)

What if the router at home was somewhat more beefy and could have a few gigabytes of flash and a little cloud-OS... it doesn't need to be on a computer at home and would be totally out of your control.

Re:Blame ISPs (1)

mattventura (1408229) | about a year ago | (#44352203)

Most home routers have hardware capable of this (after plugging in a USB drive for storage) but the included OS doesn't support it.

"Right To Serve" (2)

jdogalt (961241) | about a year ago | (#44352265)

But the problem is that residential ISPs don't want to have to actually provide "internet service". What they really want to provide is the much simpler and more profitable "client only internet service". I.e. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service-

ComIntercept (FCC->GoogleFiber)"
"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.
"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993 [slashdot.org]

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44353549)

There are only two ISPs that I know of that allow servers, SpeakEasy has a "run any server" policy, and Google Fiber has a "non-commercial server" policy. Every other ISP that I can find all have "No Servers At All" policies.

Re:"Right To Serve" (2)

jdogalt (961241) | about a year ago | (#44353717)

There are only two ISPs that I know of that allow servers, SpeakEasy has a "run any server" policy, and Google Fiber has a "non-commercial server" policy. Every other ISP that I can find all have "No Servers At All" policies.

Citations needed. Please find me the "no server at all" policy in TimeWarner Broadband's terms of service (or network management practices, or similar official policy documents. I think you'll find that Google was actually exceptionally stupid in this regard. The existing big players at least knew enough about network neutrality to just make pages and pages of chilling terms of service, but without ever going so far as to say "no server at all". Next, please go ahead and give me the citation/URL for GoogleFiber's "non-commercial server" policy. It may well be something quite recent that I will be informed of one week from today, as it sounds like a possible attempt to address my complaint. Honestly if they did concede that much I'd be at least half-way happy. But then I'd start quoting them paragraph 13 of the Federal Communication Commission's Report and Order Preserving the Open Internet again, and asking where exactly they think they get the right to prevent residential users from engaging in that kind of value trading commerce over the internet, while hypocritcally their non broadband carrier divisions go on trading advanced cloud services like gmail with residential end users in exchange for their eyeball attention (and in some cases, money for enhanced services). Yeah, ok, non-commercial only, sure, spose, cha.... :)

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44354761)

https://fiber.google.com/help/ [google.com] Under Policies. It has been here since before they started laying the fiber.

"Can I run a server from my home?
Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home security and others which may include server capabilities but are being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and encouraged."

At some point I found something about TWC stating no servers, but I can't find it. The closest thing I can find it that they have no data-cap, but if you're using lots of data and running a server, they can and have cut people off.

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about a year ago | (#44356303)

"Can I run a server from my home?
Our Terms of Service prohibit running a server. However, use of applications such as multi-player gaming, video-conferencing, home security and others which may include server capabilities but are being used for legal and non-commercial purposes are acceptable and encouraged."

And you don't sense anything fishy going on with language that self-contradictory? Do you really think that Google is not technically smart enough to word things in a less blatantly self-contradictory fashion than that, if their were no hidden agendas being served?

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44361129)

My ISP says "no servers", but then says that they will never monitor or investigate your traffic, except by account holder's request, by judicial request, or substantial proof of illegal activity . If that is the case, when how will they ever know if I am running a server? Their terms of service also do not have an escape for high bandwidth usage, it actually explicitly says that if they ever need to cap bandwidth, they will do it ISP wide and not on a per-customer basis.

The funny thing is their "Open Internet Policy" states that all non-illegal network applications are allowed on their network, with no mention of any exceptions, like "servers". Their "Open Internet Policy" actually doesn't make reference to servers at all except about port 25 being blocked by default for mail servers, but can be opened by request for any customer; it's only their "Master Agreement" that says "No servers".

I personally think it's just a "back-door" for my ISP to keep people from running commercial datacenters on residential lines. Think about it, my ISP sells symmetrical Active Fiber Gigabit Ethernet, and actively advertises that customers have "dedicated" bandwidth, such that no customer should see any congestion on the ISP's network, and properly size their trunk lines to not have congestion during peak hours.

With advertising claims like these, you need a way to keep commercial users from taking advantage. I assume Google Fiber is similar.

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44361263)

I forgot to add, my ISP also states that they do absolutely no QoS, traffic shaping, or reserved bandwidth(except for maintenance). All of their services, from TV to telephone is over the same link as your Internet via IP. They just make sure that there is no congestion by keeping ample bandwidth.

In a long chat with a senior technician who had worked at my ISP for over 10 years, he said they proactively monitor all links in their network and make sure they have plenty of free bandwidth so there is no congestion internally, and the trunk is easier to monitor since it's an aggregation point, so it tends to not fluctuate much, so keeping it uncongested is much easier.

He also mentioned that they have 3 uplinks that all work as fail-over or over-flow. So even if they did manage to get congestion for some reason, they would "quickly", by some definition, re-route some traffic over the other links until they could get their main line upgraded. But he said they have never had to do that because the proactively keep the trunk upgraded such that it can handle any burst that they have encountered.

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about a year ago | (#44364413)

I think you are beginning to see the real mess. As far as the datacenter abuse argument, if I here google try to use that, I'll argue back from the cookie monster angle.

"With advertising claims like these, you need a way to keep commercial users from taking advantage. I assume Google Fiber is similar."

If I'm using the exact same bandwidth as my neighbor, upstream and downstream, but I'm making $1,000,000 per year selling funny cat videos, then yes, I'm taking better advantage of the same resource as my neighbor (if I'm the sort of person that doesn't consider watching funny cat videos to be torturous).

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44372021)

Just making sure about the difference between business and commercial uses of Internet. If Google sells a 1Gb line and you're pegging that 1Gb during peak hours because you are selling virtual servers, that is quite different than someone using 50Mb/s running a couple of game servers and taking donations, and you some times burst to 1Gb while seeding on Bittorrent.

Re:"Right To Serve" (1)

jdogalt (961241) | about a year ago | (#44377677)

First, I hope you mis-spoke when you said "difference between business and commercial uses of the internet". I presume you meant, non-commercial vs commercial. Which gets to the point that finally a journalist has on the record agreed with me about. I.e. the way NetNeutrality currently exists, such distinction is not in the legal domain of ways that ISPs may block or throttle "lawful devices connected to the network" (including servers, small like pi or large like an onyx). I.e. suppose I find a way to make $1,000,000 serving less traffic in funny cat videos than my neighbor uses for skype calls with their grandchildren. Are you really suggesting that it is the commercial vs non-commercial nature of that traffic that should allow Google as an ISP to charge me more for it?

https://medium.com/editors-picks/5a2d9322bdc4 [medium.com] (Ryan Singel, former editor of Wired.com's Thread Level blog)

"FCC orders Google to Respond to Net Neutrality Complaint
Once the biggest backer, now a potential violator

For years, Google was the most active corporate supporter of federal Net Neutrality regulations prohibiting broadband providers from controlling what apps or devices Americans use on the internet services they pay for."

Re:Blame ISPs (1)

ultrasawblade (2105922) | about a year ago | (#44354461)

Nothing stopping you from using a PC as a router. 2 NICs + Linux or BSD, and some knowledge about how their respective packet filtering tools work, and there you go.

It is involved, and requires lots of networking knowledge, but a lot of fun.

Re:Blame ISPs (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about a year ago | (#44354301)

I'm pretty sure that if self-hosting stuff [on a residential conneciton] in the US were allowed as elsewhere, then there'd surely be way, WAY more user-friendly server software out there.
I'm pretty sure Windows XP would have had a "host your website" tool, or something like that.

Re:Blame ISPs (5, Interesting)

jdogalt (961241) | about a year ago | (#44352189)

Can you imagine the explosion in Internet traffic if ISP customers were allowed to host servers?

Why Yes! Thank you for bringing it up in the first post. Go ahead and follow this rabbit trail if you are more interested in the situation-

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993 [slashdot.org]

I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):

"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.

We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...

Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.

The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)

Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...

http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com] [cloudsession.com]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com] [cloudsession.com]

This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)

I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."

Re:Blame ISPs (1)

yusing (216625) | about a year ago | (#44355589)

Excellent. I always wondered what gave these M.... F.... the right to do this. The ISPs claim that the riot of traffic to your server would clobber your neighbors' bandwidth. (IE they'd have to actually invest in fiber. Or actually charge you a fair rate for that increased traffic. But it always seemed that the real answer was more sinister.) In this case, that excuse doesn't wash, and so I too wish you good luck.

Re:Blame ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44361949)

I live in Iceland, and my isp provides me with a 100 mbit/s symmetrical fiber optic connection.

Their TOS has no limits on servers or services and i even emailed them to ask and they said they don't care.

I host a small service that uploads about 50 TB per month, upload is not metered but all incoming traffic from other countries is, and my quota is 250 GB.

I like what iceland is doing way more than what google is doing, even if their connections are 10x faster...

My speedtest http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/2855136697 the server i mentioned is taking ~50% of my upload speed, and speed capped by myself.

Confusing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44351639)

That headline is confusing, considering there is a service called Google Now which is known not for its data consumption but its heavy battery draining capabilities.

Its growing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44351643)

The botnet cannot be contained anymore

Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44351657)

Yes, I use for a good time. Analytics, Drive, Gmail, Calendar

Thanks,
Fabio Costa
http://equipepolishop.com.br

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44351767)

Shouldn't you be keeping an eye on the football pitch instead? Jus' sayin', oi oi oi.

25%? That is nothing (5, Funny)

andy_from_nc (472347) | about a year ago | (#44351677)

All of the world's traffic is sent through an NSA server during the course of an average day.

Re:25%? That is nothing (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#44351753)

Not necessarily so.

And worse, the test methodology linked from the post is based on a three-year-old sketchy (and perhaps wheezing vacuum cleaner) and doesn't point to validation as a cumulative measurement. In other words, a bit suspect.

Re:25%? That is nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44352011)

if i got a dollar for every percent...I wouldn't call it nothing.

Re:25%? That is nothing (2)

kasperd (592156) | about a year ago | (#44352339)

if i got a dollar for every percent...I wouldn't call it nothing.

No, if you had a dollar for every percent, you'd have 25$. But that's really not a lot of money.

Re:25%? That is nothing (1)

yusing (216625) | about a year ago | (#44355489)

Google, NSA, what's the difference?

Re:25%? That is nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44356715)

As someone who works on carrier SONET and GMPLS systems with DWDM, I can tell you that this is not even close to being engineering-feasible, despite the recent revelations about the NSA's capability to do so.

What they can do on a technical level is push arbitrary early-match and clone labels into the edge networks MPLS table of an existing or potential target to capture that targets IP address or a particular protocol (IP port number) to a clone interface which can then log that targets traffic.

Additionally by capturing the flow (think s/flow or similar) statistics from the routers at the edge of the MPLS routing domain, they can search that "metadata" for additional targets associated with an existing target (IP match).

Consider that the largest logical edge routers (usually a cluster of loadbalanced routers) might route 80x 10Gbps channels into an optical mesh network. For a spy to have the technical capacity to capture all that traffic they either have to capture 20-160 lambdas for every teleport in their taget domain, either capturing every ingress DWDM optical path or every egress DWDM optical path. The problem is not optically capturing those signals, that can be accomplished relatively inexpensively using an optical coupler and an EDFA, but how to get all these bundles unbundled. They could send the bundles back to their central office without unbundling them, but this would require a clear fiber line back to their CO for EVERY bundle (and there are probably 1k or more bundles in the US alone).

To unpack a single DWDM bundle requires a wavelength splitter with the same channels and channel spacing as the source, and as many client converters as there are channels, AND a client network termination device compatible with the system used on that lambda, and some computer systems to process that flow.

In essence what you are suggesting is a complete duplicate of the nations fiber core network. For every lightpath in the network you must have a duplicate lightpath to your theoretical surveillance point.

And it wouldn't capture anything about shorthop connections that aren't passing through a lightpath provider's network.

It's much more feasible to instead capture flow statistics from the ISP, which will have already aggregated those statistics for their own network management purposes, and pass those over a logical channel which can be cheaply multiplexed over a virtual circuit. You still have the capability to do arbitrary intercepts by injecting clone labels into edge routers on demand, and at a much more reasonable cost.

Also... (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44351679)

The NSA Now Spies on 25% of North American Internet Traffic
Lol, jk, it's more.

Re:Also... (2, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#44351723)

The NSA Now Spies on 25% of North American Internet Traffic

Lol, jk, it's more.

You have that backward, headline _should_ read "NSA now has ready access to 25% of North American internet traffic without even needing their own servers"

or maybe "Another win for the cloud"?

Re:Also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353051)

This is government. They built the Utah data-center despite efficiency.

Re:Also... (1)

NotBorg (829820) | about a year ago | (#44354045)

The NSA has very few "servers." Their boxes consume not serve.

Let me ask this question: (4, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | about a year ago | (#44351713)

Google is now 25% of the North American traffic...

I have never been a CEO, an probably will never be, but what I wanted to know is what exactly goes on in a CEO's mind (say Steve Ballmer), once a statistic/detail like this is outed.

What really goes on in a mind like his?

Re:Let me ask this question: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44351789)

Google is now 25% of the North American traffic...

I have never been a CEO, an probably will never be, but what I wanted to know is what exactly goes on in a CEO's mind (say Steve Ballmer), once a statistic/detail like this is outed.

What really goes on in a mind like his?

Better not to ask what goes through Steve Ballmer's mind, but what the _chair_ goes through that Steve Ballmer is going to throw...

Re:Let me ask this question: (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44352211)

If the last five years of Ballmer are anything to go by, he doesn't actually want Microsoft to succeed. So, he's probably pleased to hear how badly he's doing. But what I don't understand is: why? Why is Microsoft deciding to jump on the cloud/tablet bandwagon and turn itself from leader into second rate Apple+Google copycat? What does he stand to gain? Maybe he's bored and has made enough money as a winner, and now he just wants to dick about with this huge plaything he's inherited from Bill. Isn't that a problem with corporate capitalism? once you have enough money to sort you and your children and your grandchildren, you don't need to worry about the future - even if people rely on your business lasting a long time.

Re:Let me ask this question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44352647)

For many people smartphones and tablets are becoming the primary computing devices, and with that developers have to care more about cross-platform compatibility and with that Microsoft's lock-in gets weaker. The importance of the desktop (or laptop) computer is diminishing and Microsoft has to adapt to stay relevant.

Re:Let me ask this question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353021)

The importance of the desktop (or laptop) computer is diminishing and Microsoft has to adapt to stay relevant.

This is a bit of a misnomer. More people are buying smartphones/tablets, and less are buying PCs/laptops. However, a mini device often can't do everything for a user that a desktop/laptop would. So, there are just as many desktops/laptops being bought for actual work, and less being bought just to check email/surf/play light games. This suggests that the "importance" has not gone down as much as the "unimportance" has gone down (and taken sales numbers with it). To stay relevant Microsoft will need to focus on what they actually did well once (and did terribly once or twice): make computers productive for people who *have* to sit down and use them.

Microsoft used to fund just about everything they did with people who needlessly bought Windows and Office licenses (for home use, to browse the web) and now they simply have to refocus on making money from licenses that people actually need.

Re:Let me ask this question: (1)

quonsar (61695) | about a year ago | (#44351803)

DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Exactly my point.

Re:Let me ask this question: (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | about a year ago | (#44351959)

what exactly goes on in a CEO's mind (say Steve Ballmer)

Probably "I need a chair"

Re:Let me ask this question: (1)

jaseuk (217780) | about a year ago | (#44352231)

Probably relief that your not having to pay for all the infrastructure and transit to host Youtube. 20%+ of that traffic is probably Youtube.

I'm sure Microsoft have 5% of NA traffic in Windows updates?

Jason.

Re:Let me ask this question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44356749)

It's even better than that. They make money by selling Google peering to other ISPs.

If they decrease network efficiency by engorging their application protocols or breaking caching, as they try their hardest to do (eg. deliberately sabotaging attempts to proxy-cache Youtube), they sell more peering and make more money. It's actually in their interests to be inefficient with bandwidth.

Re:Let me ask this question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353587)

hmm..... a long and resounding... echo echo echo echo ?

Re:Let me ask this question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353959)

"We have a captive audience of every Windows desktop user connected to the Internet, and they think the blue 'e' is the Internet, so why can't we monitize them by linking our Windows operating system to Bing?" - so they tried that with Windows 8, and it isn't working. WinRT is nothing but an attempt to deprecate WinAPI programs, and have people use "Metro" desktop apps. You almost can't set up a new Win8 desktop without a Bing signon. I found a way to get around it, but if you want to do development you still need one. The average user couldn't even think the thought that there could be a way not to use an Internet signon with Win8. Yet Win8 has been an abysmal failure so far.

I think what MS wanted was to split Windows 9 into "consumer" and "legacy" editions. The consumer edition would only run WinRT programs. The legacy edition would be for corporations, and priced so high at retail no consumer could afford it (but with deep discounts for corporations to buy it at about the same per-seat price as always) - then you'd have no choice but to go through Bing to use Windows. Throw in Office as a rental program and MS has a revenue stream.

But I can think of 900 million reasons this isn't working, and they're being written off right now because Surface RT is a miserable failure.

Re:Let me ask this question: (1)

fulldecent (598482) | about a year ago | (#44360067)

>>I have never been a CEO, an probably will never be, but what I wanted to know is what exactly goes on in a CEO's mind (say Steve Ballmer), once a statistic/detail like this is outed.
>> What really goes on in a mind like his?

The same thing you're thinking... "I'll never be a normal consumer, but I just want to know... what exactly goes on in a normal consumer's mind once a detail like this is outed"

Don't forget CDN (4, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | about a year ago | (#44351785)

CDN (Content Distribution Networks) are even more "God-like". They serve most traffic for the biggest players, like Microsoft.

The stats, metadata, and content must be quite interesting.

Re:Don't forget CDN (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44352017)

Don't forget p2p neither, that should be a big percent of all internet traffic. And CDN serves mostly static content, the same for a lot of people, is more interesting the metadata of personalized, dynamic content.

Re:Don't forget CDN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44352123)

and netflix streaming

Re:Don't forget CDN (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44352847)

Google is 25% and Netflix is 33%, P2P is only about 18%.

Obviously Youtube (5, Insightful)

darkshot117 (1288328) | about a year ago | (#44351807)

Since they are including Youtube as part of this traffic, I can see why it would be such a high percentage. Nearly every other Google service is pretty low bandwidth, but many people, including myself, now use Youtube as a replacement for TV. So I'm not suprised by this statistic at all.

Re:Obviously Youtube (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44354323)

Ditto. YouTube (and areena.yle.fi (clips from Finnish national free-to-air TV)) have completely replaced my TV watching. Digging past the cat videos you can find way more interesting stuff from YouTube than from the traditional tube.

Small ISP.. (1)

Brian (2887359) | about a year ago | (#44351899)

A relatively small local ISP has 2-3 google devices in their DCs, so that doesn't surprise me Went to do some traceroutes and noticed they were serving all my google traffic to me. Turns out it's at google's request

Re:Small ISP.. (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44352923)

Not my ISP. My trace routes always to to Chicago. 1ms pings to Google would be kind of cool.

Today in the annals of unfortunate capitalization: (3, Insightful)

sammy baby (14909) | about a year ago | (#44351905)

Just to be clear: the title of this story should be interpreted "The combined traffic of Google's internet properties now account for 25% of all Internet traffic in North America."

Not, as I thought upon my first reading, "Google's mobile device software package, "Google Now [google.com] ", accounts for 25% of all Internet traffic in North America." That made me do a spit-take.

Re:Today in the annals of unfortunate capitalizati (1)

quixada (2218366) | about a year ago | (#44353359)

Yeah, I thought the same thing. Google Now is horrible!

Fact. (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44352025)

Trying to block out google analytics using various add-ons has been an enlightening experience to say the least. The majority of websites out there have links to third party tracking sites, google analytics figuring highly among them. Trying to exist on the internet without revealing some aspect of one's identity, even for the most mundane thing -- a search for information, is becoming very difficult.

Even here on Slashdot, they've blocked Tor. Amusing -- they let anyone post "anonymously", and unless of course you actually try to post anonymously you might believe it. If a website that caters to those most likely to understand privacy on the internet can't get it right...

Re:Fact. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44352433)

Trying to block out google analytics using various add-ons has been an enlightening experience to say the least. The majority of websites out there have links to third party tracking sites, google analytics figuring highly among them. Trying to exist on the internet without revealing some aspect of one's identity, even for the most mundane thing -- a search for information, is becoming very difficult.

Even here on Slashdot, they've blocked Tor. Amusing -- they let anyone post "anonymously", and unless of course you actually try to post anonymously you might believe it. If a website that caters to those most likely to understand privacy on the internet can't get it right...

Ghostery report 5 blocked trackers embedded in Slashdot pages:
- Google Analytics
- ScoreCard Research Beacon
- DoubleClick
- Google AdWords Conversion
- Janrain

Re:Fact. (1)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#44352751)

Hm. Abine's DoNotTrackMe doesn't detect Janrain.

I have almost everything blocked, just to see what breaks. Blocking trackers doesn't seem to cause any problems with most sites. Blocking third-party cookies occasionally causes a problem, but not often. Blocking Flash storage of 3rd party data breaks CBS video, but not NBC, ABC, Fox, Youtube, or Hulu. (Until a few months ago, if you blocked all trackers, CBS video skipped the commercials. But they "fixed" that.)

Re:Fact. (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about a year ago | (#44352913)

On the upside, Google Analytics still comes from its own domain which has an obvious name, so it's easy to block and then continue with the target page. Some places will pull javascript from a dozen domains named with just random strings.

I don't believe it... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44352237)

I don't get it...

Youtube is pretty light on full-length movies and TV episodes, and it's still not extremely common that their videos are available in high definition.

Netflix and Hulu both have much more multi-hour content, higher-quality content that more people are likely to want to watch, and they have most of it in highdef, eating up the pipes. I've ever considered Hulu as a free, viable replacement for live TV, now that their offerings are so extensive, and even includes nightly news programs (only glaring exception is up-to-date PBS programming like NOVA, Frontline, American Experience, Secrets of the Dead, Nature, This Old House, etc.), but both myself and my ISP are quite happy that I find an OTA antenna a superior option for the foreseeable future.

I find it very hard to believe that Youtube is so massively beating out all the higher quality video providers, and can only conclude that the data is massively flawed, as TFA starts suggesting about half-way through.

Re:I don't believe it... (1)

ZFox (860519) | about a year ago | (#44352427)

and it's still not extremely common that their videos are available in high definition.

I find this to be exactly opposite, now. Maybe not for the Top 10 Boobs in Video Games videos or anything relatively old, but I find that every single regularly uploading Youtube Channel now offers at the very least 720p.

I think that mobile devices help them to gain that #1 spot (I would imagine more people watch 4 minute videos on their phones than full length movies and shows). Also think about videos that have gone viral that everybody has to see. Also think about the number of sites that embed Youtube videos into their own content. Think about all of the companies now using Youtube as the CDN of their own marketing materials. Also do not forget the reports of ISPs blocking other providers from doing the same thing as google; possibly because it competes with their OnDemand offerings (Comcast and Netflix).

Re:I don't believe it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44352645)

I don't know about you but I feel 99.5% of traditional TV content offensive to anyone who has two braincells to rub together.
You can find a lot of very interesting stuff on youtube and I've pretty much stopped watching regular TV.

Interestingly enough, you can get your fill of vapid brainless entertainment on youtube too. Turns out with modern tools it's not hard or expensive to turn out content in the "Entertainment" category when it's just some loudmouth talking about celebs or sports other useless gossip. There are a lot of professional youtubers now. With a 5-10 man group many turn out viewership numbers that rival small cable TV networks.

I think the death of traditional TV is coming, and I think it's going to come in part from the likes of youtube. Youtube will suck up all the cheap and easy to make content when everyone realizes they can see what they want, when they want on tablets, smart phones, smart TVs, or anything else with an internet connection.. And it's free.

High-end content (Game of thrones, other high budget TV shows) will move to paid streaming services.

Re:I don't believe it... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44352947)

I find it very hard to believe that Youtube is so massively beating out all the higher quality video providers, and can only conclude that the data is massively flawed, as TFA starts suggesting about half-way through.

Or, more likely, that people are simply no longer willing to pay money for content. With the exception of Hulu, most of those higher-quality providers charge a monthly fee. Also, most online video content, statistically, is viewed by younger people, who tend to have shorter attention spans on average, so YouTube's short clips win again. Thus, IMO, it is not at all surprising that their traffic would represent the lion's share of data delivery.

Re:I don't believe it... (1)

FlynnMP3 (33498) | about a year ago | (#44353263)

The article said that Google services is on the average is 25% of NA traffic. During prime time hours for obvious reasons and the early morning hours where Netflix and Hulu update their cache servers, the majority of traffic is those 2 sites. That's very believable.

Re:I don't believe it... (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a year ago | (#44356929)

I hope you realize you can watch at least some of the PBS shows you mention at pbs.org. At least *many* episodes of Nova & Frontline.

Also, Frontline is available as an audio podcast, and, as a news program, IMHO I can get most of the useful info out of it just by listening to it (at 2x like I do most podcasts).

Re:I don't believe it... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44357599)

It would be infinitely more convenient if I could just add them to my hulu queue and go. Videos scattered all over the web are a no go for a multimedia PC. HuluDesktop, meanwhile, works pretty well, despite the bugs

Re:I don't believe it... (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about a year ago | (#44357615)

But you'd have ads on your hulu queue. I don't believe there are any ads (ignoring the 'funding by' part on PBS which is technically an ad but usually very short and not the same type of ads you see elsewhere) on the pbs showings.

Re:I don't believe it... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44358055)

Ads won't kill me. In fact I'd like to see PBS get a little extra funding out of the deal.

And the other 75% ... (1)

jamesl (106902) | about a year ago | (#44352327)

... is porn.

Re:And the other 75% ... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44354399)

Well, BitTorrent (and warez in general) probably takes a quite big slice.

Mixup (0)

Muramas95 (2459776) | about a year ago | (#44352453)

When I first read the title I saw "Google Now" (the app) is 25% of the internet traffic.

Too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44352907)

Google has too much control. I encourage all individuals and companies to establish your own non-google routed connections. Work with your ISP/Communications provider to make sure traffic does not get routed through Google.

Trust Issues? (1)

MotoRyan (2942701) | about a year ago | (#44353187)

Please Google, don't screw us. We have put our faith and internet traffic into you. We have rested our emails, the contents of our cell phones, our family photos, and favorite restaurants with you. Please don't be a d&^k and do anything stupid like turn into a giant conglomerate who controls all of Earth's resources and keeps them for only the super wealthy, while the poor are confined to a desolate existence - or something like that I have seen in the Science Fiction movies.

Re: Trust Issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44354237)

Good luck with that. Keep enjoying your 'free' shiny stuff!

Re:Trust Issues? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44356771)

Considering both Larry Page and Eric Schmidt are randroids (not being a dick is immoral in their minds), I wouldn't count on it.

GGOGLE = EVIL AND HERE IS WHY !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353189)

Click a link. It goes through G's servers first then to the target. This is not the cache link but the "direct" site link. Can you say SLOW !! And some won't work at all !! E-V-I-L !!

I hand edit the links: remove all before the target's http://.../ [...] and everything from &sa after.

Parse error (1)

technomom (444378) | about a year ago | (#44353211)

Parsing please.......

Is this "Google Now" serving 25%......or "Google" now serving 25%.

How is this data captured? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44354211)

Amazing. pig@acmexd.com

Internet? (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about a year ago | (#44354547)

I think you mean WWW ...

Re:Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44356507)

I think you mean WWW ...

Exactly. I don't believe it's 25% of the internet, I could be willing to believe it's 25% of www.

Torrents (huuuuge, how many gigabytes does your average internet person push through each day including seedboxes?), content delivery in direct competition with torrents (Netflix, Amazon, Crunchyroll, Spotify etc.), multiplayer gaming (both PCs and consoles), financial transactions (bank to bank), financial trading (minus the extreme custom networks), VPNs, SSH, SMTP, Tor, I2P... and tons of other stuff.

Loads of stuff has www interfaces but do all the hard work without www or for that matter HTTP(S).

Start page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44357911)

In '96 I had a job in Australia and the net was new. The university did a survey and found that they were using heaps of bandwidth between Aus and the Silicon Valley. I suggested that they might get their users to make their browser start page the uni's home page, rather than [I'm really old] the Netscape home site. Traffic dropped massively once they twigged. Hmmmm. I wonder....

Re:Start page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44358303)

> In '96 I had a job in Australia and the net was new.

The net was nothing even remotely close to "new" in 1996. It was huge in 96, and over 25 years old.

Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44367325)

Earlier poster said posting anonymously is hard

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>