glmclell
join:2000-10-17
Manistee, MI
clubs:
 ·Charter Pipeline
| speculate
maybe google's just lookin to lease some serious bandwidth for private datacenters or something having to do with content distrubution.
--
Been brain-washed lately? Remember, CNN is available 24x7 on the air and online - scrub scrub scrub! |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| All this speculation is crazy. More than likely (since I know a couple people who have worked and still work at Google), it's this:
During Google's content pulls (I forget the term they use for it), i.e. indexing the 'net, they use an INCREDIBLE amount of bandwidth. Historically, these pulls have been done at specific hours, and from specific datacentres -- done solely for finances.
Google has probably concluded the same thing everyone in the industry has: bandwidth is EXPENSIVE. It's cheaper, transit-wise, to turn up your own fibre and not have to worry about backbone providers screwing you over bandwidth costs.
Sooner or later, the home broadband industry is going to go through this exact same phenomenon: that 6mbit/s cable modem isn't going to amount to jack squat when there aren't any customers in co-los who can push traffic that fast. Due to the OUTRAGEOUS bandwidth costs, not everyone can afford a DS3 (45mbit) worth of traffic (especially when the going rate is around US$300+ for 512kbit), which is why more and more sites are starting to rate-limit throughput.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. |
|
AJ023
join:2001-12-25
Forest Hills, NY
| Reminds me of the Gbrowser speculation.
I took a look at the REAL job posting on Yahoo and that posting was taken so out of context its not even funny.
Your 100% right. Google is a company that needs to reduce bandwidth fees. However having a global backbone with a company like google can possibly lead to other advantages as well down the road. But for google to be the equivalent of a backbone provider or telco, absolutely not.
With that being said, I do think eventually google will partner with broadband providers much like Yahoo is doing with Verizon and SBC now for the last mile. |
|
skylabpc
join:2002-03-31
La Canada Flintridge, CA | reply to koitsu
I think you are getting your bandwidth pricing from 1997. $300 for 512k? No. More like $70 all the way down to $20 per Mb/s in most datacenters. And a DS3 is nothing nowdays. |
|
timoteo21
join:2002-05-14
Los Angeles, CA
| Hmm, I'm paying $300 per mbps, about twice what you say I should be paying. This is for an on-demand burstable connection, i.e., charges are based on 95th percentile peak load. Sounds like I should be shopping around. Or, perhaps the $140/mbps is based on prior committment? Can you point me to who is offering that? |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| reply to skylabpc
Sorry, ain't the case. Hurricane Electric doesn't list co-lo prices on their page, you have to request a quote.
US$300 includes 7U of rack space, which is obviously a pre-requisite. Bandwidth increments go up by about 2x in US$100 increments, but still, the base charge is US$200 for 7U and 256kbit.
Regardless, bandwidth is still expensive. No one pays per megabit or megabyte, because all it takes is some moronic cable modem user leeching an entire site with wget and you're paying US$20000 ;P
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. |
|
