1 edit | reply to noname10
Re: Karl, you have any guess said by noname10:You're not mentioning the fact that content from Akamai, Google, or Limelight is cheaper for the ISP as well. Google and Limelight peer with most ISP which cuts out transit costs for both the content provider (google and Limelight) and the ISP. ....The direct peering takes out an unnecessary middle man and saves both parties money. This is a myth used to (temporarily) justify this model.
Transit costs for broadband ISPs are a fraction of end to end bandwidth costs. Enabling unlimited bandwidth is never cheaper for the ISP as it does not lower the costs of metro networks or last mile. "Free" peering should only be done with entities that share equal costs of carrying the traffic end to end (1 meter vs 1000KM). If one party sends more than the other, there should be settlement regardless of their Tiered status.
The reason the big 3 have peering with ISPs today is due to their ability to cause great pain to non ISPs by manipulating traffic locations or arbitrage which increase the ISPs cost forcing the issue. There is a cost to deliver bits and the big 3 don't want any part of it. They want those costs pushed to the ISP and in turn the users.
It is easy to blame ones infrastructure provider (TV or data). What most fail to realize is the reality of companies like ESPN raising their prices, or the big 3 no longer paying for their 1/2 of end to end Internet delivery.
While it is easy to point a finger (I guess as I am doing), think through the entire picture vs. the easy "pile on" approach. The Internet economics ARE changing and concerns about the manipulation of this should focus on all involved. |
|
| said by yt:said by noname10:You're not mentioning the fact that content from Akamai, Google, or Limelight is cheaper for the ISP as well. Google and Limelight peer with most ISP which cuts out transit costs for both the content provider (google and Limelight) and the ISP. ....The direct peering takes out an unnecessary middle man and saves both parties money. This is a myth used to (temporarily) justify this model. No you are wrong. It is not a Myth it is a fact. Your entire argument is a fallacy.
Think about this logic here. I say peering saves the ISP's money, and you say that is a myth based on the savings being small? In fact your argument against me supported my position not yours. |
|
| reply to yt
said by yt:said by noname10:You're not mentioning the fact that content from Akamai, Google, or Limelight is cheaper for the ISP as well. Google and Limelight peer with most ISP which cuts out transit costs for both the content provider (google and Limelight) and the ISP. ....The direct peering takes out an unnecessary middle man and saves both parties money. "Free" peering should only be done with entities that share equal costs of carrying the traffic end to end (1 meter vs 1000KM). If one party sends more than the other, there should be settlement regardless of their Tiered status. Ok, I wanted to adress this statement too because it is so asinine. Actually I am having trouble responding to it. You want both the ISP and content provider to to pay MORE MONEYto add a unnecessary middleman network and provide a less reliable and lower quality of service with higher latency at the same time? Are you a child or a union worker?
It actually wouldn't surprise me if your a union telco worker. Please tell me you are for my own amusement LOL. |
|
4 edits | reply to noname10
said by noname10:Think about this logic here. I say peering saves the ISP's money, and you say that is a myth based on the savings being small? In fact your argument against me supported my position not yours. Let me try and clarify it.
• The small (temporary) savings are for some ISPs for the existing traffic.
• Or.. the traffic may already be traversing a peer of that ISP and while the CDN is, and should, be paying for use of a network, it doesn't save the ISP any transit costs. Peers have a balance of trade where either party carries relatively equal load/equal distance of the other parties traffic. (hence the peering relationship vs transit)
• There is a end to end cost of traffic that has first mile, core, metro and last mile. The most expensive part of the network is as it gets close to the user. The metro and access.
• While a CDN may (and I stress may) cut out some national costs, allowing UNLIMITED FREE traffic without any network growth recover costs takes the existing (temporary) savings of not paying transit and 10x, 100x the amount of content that can be sent at no incremental cost.
This in turn takes that temporary transit savings (small piece of the $$ pie) and enables unfunded exponential growth requiring large capital outlay on the metro and last mile.
Most all content is consolidating behind 3 players and companies like the one you work for are pushing for no more network costs (for them). This dismantles existing Internet economics and pushes all network costs to the consumers.
Pure and simple: Free peering should be with peers that have an equal network cost burden of carrying traffic. 10 meters vs 1000 KM is not equal network cost burden. Consumers should not be the only ones paying for the growth of Internet traffic. |
|
4 edits | reply to noname10
said by noname10:Ok, I wanted to adress this statement too because it is so asinine. Actually I am having trouble responding to it. You want both the ISP and content provider to to pay MORE MONEYto add a unnecessary middleman network and provide a less reliable and lower quality of service with higher latency at the same time? Are you a child or a union worker? It actually wouldn't surprise me if your a union telco worker. Please tell me you are for my own amusement LOL. As stated before, the intermediate providers are not the main cost of Internet infrastructure. In fact, most of them provide very little of the network as most broadband networks have backbones these days. Most of the middle transit providers carry the traffic for 1 router hop and are "selling" the broadband networks (very similar to Cogent issues in the past). The middle providers gain the profits without having any of the real costs. This is why the Tier1 peering system is in such a mess these days.
The broadband networks still need to carry this traffic end to end and any minor savings (if any) is temporary and negatively compounded by the impact of an increase growth trend (do to unfunded free access) on the edge.
I am not advocating content pay everyone... I am saying that content should pay someone for network use and balance of trade/proper peering will maintain the economics. Otherwise all costs push to the consumer. |
|
