how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
3 edits | reply to NetAdmin1
Re: NN = Big Business not Consumers You are thinking small pure access providers. While peering may help them in the short run, the long term strategy is flawed due to growth costs (this has been explained). Look a bit more at the BGP data on how content is connected to major networks (I no longer call them access or transit as this is blurred these days). You will find that the old views of IXPs and Tier1s is outdated.
Using your example.... (Cogent|XO|TATA|BT|AT&T|Comcast|Verizon|DTAG|Rogers) and Limelight are connected to (Cogent|XO|TATA|BT|AT&T|Comcast|Verizon|DTAG|Rogers). Initially, only LL is paying for transit as the other access+network providers have peering with a relatively balance traffic pattern and equal cost burden of carrying bits more than 6 meters.
LL arbitrages the ISPs off each other as I described in another post. Where each of these ISPs were receiving revenue from a balance of customers like LLNW and other major content sources that now goes away over time with consolidation into an oligopoly.
You are correct that peering with peers is not cost shifting. Peering with content IS cost shifting as it is not quid pro quo for the ISP. The $$'s go away, but the costs don't.
Things have changed my friend.... | | |
|
| What a load of bull poop (or maybe SHEEP poop in your case).
Your very first statement "all content has consolidated into a very few players" is nonsense, but you base all of your subsequent argument on it. What "few players" are you referring to? There are certainly a few BIG content providers, but as always, there are a ton of smaller ones too.
Your arbitrage description is more nonsense. The costs for "Bad ISP C" to carry your traffic will be at least equal to if not greater than the costs for the larger ISP who turned you down for peering. If "Bad ISP C" keeps carrying customers like you, eventually their balance of traffic with their own peering partners will get out of kilter and "Bad ISP C" will have to start paying for transit themselves instead of getting free peering. They'll be paying the provider that turned you down for free peering in the first place. It all works out in the end!
Digging through your confusing rhetoric ("peering with content"???), your main point seems to be that companies who control both content and transport are changing the dynamics of the broadband market. I can only think of 2 - Google and Comcast, but I don't think they could accurately be referred to as "oligopolists". While they certainly may find it easier to get better peering arrangements for themselves, I doubt they will single-handedly change the entire Internet peering infrastructure.
I wouldn't have bothered reply to this post, but "to all the sheep out there" and "this has been explained" triggered my pretentiousness sensor. | |
4 edits | said by Supervisor:Your very first statement " all content has consolidated into a very few CDN players" is nonsense, but you base all of your subsequent argument on it. What " few players" are you referring to? There are certainly a few BIG content providers, but as always, there are a ton of smaller ones too. Yes there are many smaller ones, but there has never been a time in the Internet history that this much content has consolidated into only a few players. AND all that content is removing their side of network costs funding by forcing peering.
From the NY Times
quote:
‘hyper giants’ like Limelight, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and YouTube — now generate and consume a disproportionate 30 percent of all Internet traffic,” the researchers noted.
NOTE: The original data quoted does not list Facebook and the NY Times author is missing the fact that Google and Youtube are the same company.
said by Supervisor:Your arbitrage description is more nonsense. The costs for " Bad ISP C" to carry your traffic will be at least equal to if not greater than the costs for the larger ISP who turned you down for peering. I've answered this question at least once above. Network costs of end to end (e.g. 1000KMs) vs 1 router port from the content customer of "Bad ISP" to their peer that has to carry it all the way. This is very different and not "equal to if not greater". I also did not specific size as "larger". There are also situations where a "larger" ISP will exploit a peering relationship of a smaller ISP with imbalanced traffic.
said by Supervisor:If " Bad ISP C" keeps carrying customers like you, eventually their balance of traffic with their own peering partners will get out of kilter and " Bad ISP C" will have to start paying for transit themselves instead of getting free peering. They'll be paying the provider that turned you down for free peering in the first place. It all works out in the end! I see you have not been exposed to large ISP peering arrangements. It is not as simple as, "we are imbalanced so you now need to pay me". I've tried to explain the arbitrage issue with facts around how financial, costs, customer and even NN pressures come into play around this, but I guess you are not getting it or trying to downplay the issue with insults and dismissals for a reason. You are coming into a buried news discussion fairly late.... | |
|
