Slashdot Mirror
Internet Traffic Shifting Away From Tier-1 Carriers
carusoj writes 'The way traffic moves over the Internet has changed radically in the last five years. Arbor Networks next week will present the results of a two-year study, drawing on more than 256 exabytes of Internet traffic data, which found that the bulk of international Internet traffic no longer moves across Tier-1 transit providers. Instead, the traffic is handled directly by large content providers, content delivery networks, and consumer networks, and is handed off from one of these to another. You can probably guess what some of these companies are: Google, Microsoft, Facebook. Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30% of all Internet traffic.' Here is the Arbor Networks press release on the report.
the Internet really is a series of interconnected networks. And all is right in the world again.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows. The FCC needs to set rules that create a neutral, flat playing field for all agents on the Internet - regardless of size or their role.
With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.
Actually, most of the motivation to erect additional barriers and artificial costs is the result of gatekeepers on users. What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?
This actually removes a potential problem, that being tier 1 providers using their position to extort money for not degrading performance to specific content providers. Still, I think the proposed network neutrality rules are important for network edge, last mile providers and it doesn't hurt to apply it across the board.
Plea$e u$e a few more $'$ in your po$t, it'$ make$ you $ound much more authoritative...
Out of curiosity, who SHOULD regulate the internet? Also out of curiosity, who hosts the majority of the internet? They're the ones bearing the monetary burden. I suppose some people might think the internet is just sort of "out there," but I hope most on Slashdot understand that the internet boils down to actual physical machines (er, sorry... tubes) which cost money to build and keep running...
Should the FCC? Not necessarily. On the other hand, I sure would rather have the FCC running it than, say, Iran. Or the UK. Or the UN, which can't seem to do anything except tell people what to do anyways - and they don't even do that very well, if you yell loud enough...
Spot on. The rise of the multi-national corporation continues. At some point their power will eclipse that of all but a few countries. This will result in a strengthened form on international government to counteract that power. Or, we are looking at rule of the people through corporations. Some will argue this has already happened.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
With a few large, unregulated companies sourcing and directly distributing much of the Internet's traffic, the potential for self interested mischief grows.
Actually, most of the motivation to erect additional barriers and artificial costs is the result of gatekeepers on users. What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?
This actually removes a potential problem, that being tier 1 providers using their position to extort money for not degrading performance to specific content providers. Still, I think the proposed network neutrality rules are important for network edge, last mile providers and it doesn't hurt to apply it across the board.
Umm, Google already does this, so does Yahoo and a bunch of others. Just take a trip to mainland China and see if Google works the same for you.
mm, is bush still in control of FCC? I am surprised.
And to answer your question. yes, I would love to have the FCC regulate the Internet Service Providers (not the Internet) and the quality of service being provided.
Umm... the FCC net neutrality rules are for ISPs in the US SPARKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good freaking grief we are talking about regulations FOR US COMPANIES, OPERATING IN THE US, SUPPLY SERVICES TO CUSTOMERS IN THE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about that for a reason!!!!!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
FCC rules should apply to companies that have a legal presence in the United States. Other companies should be regulated by their own countries.
There's a lot the FCC can do by regulating US ISPs, and it can also regulate any multinationals that have a US presence.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Until there are abuses, don't make laws. The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent. I can think of very few well meaning laws that haven't been used in a way that the writers didn't intend.
The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around. Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Please explain to me, and the rest of the audience, why the FCC, an American organization full of Bu$h appointees, should have any say whatsoever in the regulation of the internet, an international network that long ago left the sponsorship of the U$ Government?
That idea is stupid. Please stop suggesting it!
No the GP post is correct. The FCC should get full say over what American telecom companies do.
If you either already have, or are not interested in, any of the benefits that would give your country, then great. Otherwise your own government will need to deal with your own countries companies.
In the same way as your idea to give FCC control over other countries telecom is bad, we also do not want your countries government dictating what American companies can and can't do, so it is a fair deal.
Oh by the way, if you want to bash a countries government, you should at least be aware of that government.
We get a new president every 8 years (sometimes every 4), and you are a good year out of date on the most basic piece of information above 'the country exists'
So the correct answer to your question is: "HA, that was a lame troll. You don't even know who bush or our president is!"
Lets let the UN regulate it instead. There are never any politics in UN matters, no sir.
This is a great example of how the free market works best. Years and years ago, we used to sit on /. and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers and their business practices. Fast-forward many moons and lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way. Imagine that!
So what do the content providers do? They simply route around the problem and do it themselves. Do they go complain to the government and ask for subsidies? No. Do they ask for new laws (that benefit them to the detriment of everyone else)? No.
This is exactly what should have happened in a capitalist economy.
For a bunch of internet geeks, I am surprised at how many anti-capitalists we have on this site. Capitalism is just like the internet in that it "routes around" damage. It used to be ruthlessly efficient back when we allowed companies to go bankrupt and customers to look elsewhere. Now that the government is into so many industries, I am not sure if that is the case anymore...but that is another discussion.
I, for one, welcome our new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers. They are shining example of what happens when a heavily regulated industry stops innovating and serving it's customers. Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be. That's the free market at work.
This seems like common sense to me... I mean anyone want to raise there hand if their homepage isn't on that top 30 list (other than /. or blank).
~Mekkah
So how do I route around the only ISP available to me while holding down a full-time job and family?
Agreed. If bandwidth capacity becomes concentrated upon the same entities that are content providers, then the next logical step is the erection of barriers to competing content. It will be in their interest to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth, either through network architecture or legislation, so that they can monopolize the delivery medium, much in the same way that TV networks and Radio stations were able to because of the real scarcity in the open-air EM spectrum.
All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles. This is because the FCC has demonstrated its vulnerability to capture by the entities it's supposed to be regulating.
I can see the fnords!
That's like saying that each of 4 hotdog vendors outside of a baseball game "consume" 25% of the hotdogs served.
They're fulfilling requests by outside agencies (users) made INTO their services.
The users are the ones "consuming" the traffic.
This kind of stupidity in language use just makes the desk so much more attractive to my forehead.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Most of which are headquartered in Ireland (etc) for tax purposes.
The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around. Until that ability begins to erode, lets keep the law out of it!
That's all well and good if you're in the middle of the network with several routes to choose from. If you're on the periphery you've only got one route, through your ISP. If they're the ones being disruptive, you're Straight Outta Luck.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Umm, Google already does this, so does Yahoo and a bunch of others. Just take a trip to mainland China and see if Google works the same for you.
Gee, I think I'll book a trip to China to test an anonymous coward's theory. Or maybe you could provide a citation or at least details about what you're claiming. You say Google is degrading performance for users in China in order to extort more money? Also, how does a potential US law have any influence on this in any case?
Years and years ago, we used to sit on /. and bitch about the Tier-1 carriers.... ...lo-and-behold, we find that the Tier-1 customers felt the same way.
I think you'll find that /. users are the Tier1's customers. Sure, not every /. user, but I bet /. has the highest percentage of users that are also Tier1 customers too.
then why are we paying 100% of the price to the ISP's?
Because your ISP runs and maintains the miles of cabling going from their backbone connection to your house?
They charge you for that connection. Google and others don't charge you for their content because it's more economical to let visitors come in free and charge advertisers for access to those visitors. Google uses that revenue to pays for its own network.
If you haven't already figured this out, I don't know what else to tell you.
We should pay for a service plan to whatever ISP we choose (between what is best available and what we need/want), and a portion of that money should go to supporting whatever companies or organizations maintain the pathways, respectfully.
Building and maintaining the last-mile connection into your house is the greatest expense for ISPs. Once your data hits the routers in the CO, it's chump change to get it to the backbone/peering points. The "portion of that money" to maintain the pathway out to the house is actually the lion's share of the cost.
Yes, I have worked for a major ISP. Recently.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Getting back on TOPIC...
Original poster is spot on. The big telecomms like to argue that a tiered internet, where big content providers pay extra for better transport, is necessary (nay, crucial) because that traffic produced by the content providers is consuming so much bandwidth that major infrastructure upgrades are needed.
Instead, we see that big content is handling much of the fat transport by itself. So it seems to me that content providers have stepped up to the plate in terms of managing their own bandwidth usage.
Time for big telecomm to shit down, shut up, and eat crow.
It doesn't say that they saved the traffic, only that they drew from it. I'd imagine what they have is a higher level set of statistics based on usage data for 256 exabytes worth of traffic and not the actual bits representing say, the cybersex you had that you wouldn't want any one else to know about.
Some laws create freedom (even while taking it). The laws against murder give us the freedom to live by discouraging murder (or even merely punishing it).
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Until there are abuses, don't make laws.
So much for all those "There oughta be a law!" after-the-fact cries from folks who suffer injustice. ;-)
The problem with laws is that they too can be used for good or ill. A law, any law, restricts freedom.. no matter it's intent.
That's a bit over-broad, doncha think? Assuming you mean "freedom" in a non-legal handwavy sense, I think you'd agree that laws against murder, theft, prohibitions against race discrimination, or consumer protection legislation protecting the public from unsafe foods or products don't restrict freedom.
Either way, I'd suggest your caught in a uniquely American and mostly mythical notion of frontier freedom. Governments in modern societies need to set some sort of public policy. That policy, in turn, is typically implemented by ... wait for it ... passing laws.
I do agree with your general sentiment about there being too many laws. The problem, I think, is that people are generally selfish or are otherwise assholes. They don't just refuse norms of good or common sense behaviour, they often go to great lengths to find loopholes in or ways around existing laws. That applies to the driver of a car who doesn't think it's worth his time to signal a lane change or slow down for a pedestrian, or a company discovering that bad behaviour can increase profits for its shareholders.
There are alternatives, and if your ISP is preventing you from doing what you need/want to do you would find one. Sure it may not be available right now, as there isn't a need with your current ISP. But say your ISP started charging extra if you wanted to use some popular websites... now there would be enough unhappy customers that a competitor might be able to gain some traction.
Market based solutions are not always swift, but they are usually better than legal based ones.
I know if my local ISP started treating its customers this way, I would start my own community ISP buying and reselling raw bandwidth. The worse they treat their customers the faster I would grow.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Agreed. If bandwidth capacity becomes concentrated upon the same entities that are content providers, then the next logical step is the erection of barriers to competing content.
I think you're misunderstanding what this article is talking about. It is about users of Google and other big content providers bypassing the tier 1 operators of the network core. There's no way Google can erect barriers to anyone but themselves in this scenario.
It will be in their interest to create an artificial scarcity of bandwidth, either through network architecture or legislation, so that they can monopolize the delivery medium, much in the same way that TV networks and Radio stations were able to because of the real scarcity in the open-air EM spectrum.
There are already one cable provider and one phone line provider making a duopoly restricting access and introducing uncompetitive scarcity. And you're worried that Google and 29 other companies that provide about 30% of content are going to together exercise influence to create a new bottleneck? That's not particularly plausible or worrying.
All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.
I wish wifi made for a viable solution, but I don't think it does reliably enough. The engineer in me says hard wired cabling for big bandwidth transfers makes a lot more sense than the latency of many hops through a peer-to-peer system. It makes a lot more sense in my mind to follow the lead of other countries and implement net neutrality rules or even a socialized backbone to provide competition and prevent abuse of power.
This is because the FCC has demonstrated its vulnerability to capture by the entities it's supposed to be regulating.
This is because we allow corporations to lobby congresspersons and donate to campaign funds when there is no legitimate reason for them to do so.
An interesting analysis. However, I don't see the same conclusion. These content providers are routing around the Tier 1 providers because they're too big. Yes, it's the internet at work, routing around the inefficiencies, but not because of T1 business practices, but because they get better, cheaper service doing it themselves.
These aren't new non-Tier-1 major backbone providers. They're simply behemoths who've outgrown the playground. They're not reselling their access, they're providing bridges into the other silos. To me, this is a disheartening turn of events. While I don't see any of these companies cutting off access to the other silos (becoming AOL 2.0), they're locking up access in direct business-to-business agreements. If MS and Google decide to provide QoS on traffic X, or entirely block traffic Y, it's a matter between those two companies. Whereas, should a T1 provider do the same thing, we'd all be up in arms. Granted, The number of players makes these kinds of scenarios unlikely, but this direct linking starts to hide these kinds of concerns.
Just a thought, capitalism is more like evolution than the Internet. It doesn't route around, it just allows bad ideas to fail. That said, the government(s) sometime stick their ho-ho grabbers in at the wrong places and we end up with life support systems woven into law for some business plans but not others. Evolution stops, and that's messing with nature man! Yes, I just compared Tier 1 providers to Frankenstein in a roundabout way. If the last mile was forced open so anyone can play, those 30 would easily be buying up Tier 1 providers for augmenting their business plan, which gives us a different set of problems. Such as 'how long can Google avoid being evil?'
Oh sure, if we get rid of lobbyists, stock holders, dumbass legislators, and a few greedy groups of sharks like the RIAA et al, all will be good. The trouble is that every time I check the magic 8 ball on this it answers in negative tones.... WITH ALL CAPS too. If capitalistic growth happens, how do we prevent ending up with simply a different and more complex set of problems?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Eventually, another solution will be found, if the government doesn't get in the middle of it and start dictating how things will be.
But [...] child pornography [...] .
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
WELL said, sir.
I have plenty of gripes about capitalism. But yes, it is AWESOME to see it work the way it's supposed to. Content providers have protected their interests by making an investment in network infrastructure. And by doing so, it makes the internet, and internet-related industries at large, more competitive, diverse, and structurally robust.
Actually my ex-girlfriend is in China right now, what tests should I have her run?
Everyone is getting all up in arms here yelling OMG GOOGLE IS GOING TO RESTRICT MY INTERNETZ! Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this is saying is when I do a google search in Europe, instead of it using a tier1 backbone to access google's servers in america, there is a data center somewhere in europe, owned by google, which processes the request and communicates over google's own undersea cables (or rented bandwidth on it as it almost certainly is). How exactly does this restrict anyone's freedom?
Wasn't there a study that 80 to 95% of all traffic was bittorrent?
And now 30% of all traffic is big sites like Google?
This math doesn't add up. I think they're just making stuff up.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Many Bush appointees are still entrenched in the govt. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read some news once in a while.
Name one of them that is in the FCC.
Herpes for sure.
Quick, call the EFF! Google peers with Facebook! I have a constitutional right for all my Google-to-Facebook packets to transit some 3rd party carrier!
Moreover, a lot of the 900-lb gorillas of the Internet have colocation operations in the same building, so peering is largely a matter of just tossing a cable over a partition or two.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
"At some point their[multinational corps] power will eclipse that of all but a few countries."
Hell, they run our country. That leaves, what, Russia and China. Saves us, you commies! You're our only hope! How the heck did this happen?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Can you speak up? I'm having trouble hearing you.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Q.E.D.
p.s. the company is run by a convicted felon.
Well, let me think a second. Every nation one earth seems to regulate the intartubez, when you think about it. China has their great (fire)wall - Iran had little difficulty deciding to pinch some tubes during their election protests, Australia has some hare brained censorship planes, as do Canada, France, Germany - need I go on?
Assuming that the United States is going to be on that bandwagon along with every other nation on earth, I'd much rather see the FCC regulating the intartubez than just about anyone else. As for the "Bush appointees" - I wasn't aware that FCC employees were appointed by anyone, much less Bush. For the most part, the FCC seems to actually have a clue, unlike congress, or the courts, or most other agencies of the US government.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
but not because of T1 business practices, but because they get better, cheaper service doing it themselves.
It is not because of their business practices but how their business operates, and people find cheaper and better alternatives. Bad business practices tend to create problems in the company making them vulnerable to competition.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why do you think the Internet needs regulation?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Robert Malcolm McDowell ... the head of the FCC?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Then, when the corporations are big enough, they will eat all the humans.
Net neutrality laws proposed to date have been concerned with what happens in the middle. None of them will do anything to solve the last mile natural monopoly.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
That's not logical at all. Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet, and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them, people would scream bloody murder until they were removed.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Corporations can't donate to campaigns. Not directly at least.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Since you took the time, so will I.
A law's sole purpose is to restrict freedoms... in other words to move further from anarchy.
Sure many laws are necessary because without them society would crumble. However there should be as few laws as necessary to maintain a productive society.
If they try to write network neutrality laws, then they will essentially be writing a law that says what the carriers CAN do as much as they are writing what they CAN'T do. At least right now they are being governed by their customer's interests... once there are laws that say they can do something, they will.
Also, once there is a law, it can be changed. People are much less concerned with amendments to existing laws then new ones. So lets say that a NN law gets passed that prevents all forms of providers charging for access to particular websites. A little lobbying and they can get that amended, often as part of a unrelated bill, to allow them to do something we wouldn't like. Because the law was already in place, we actually made it easier for them to get what they want.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
It's funny how the entire article doesn't say much more than the summary. Adding the comments here, slashdot has more info on the story than the original article...
Nerds rule! (I always knew we do.)
Please stop posting here until you are no longer 14 years old. Thanks.
Robert Malcolm McDowell ... the head of the FCC?
Way to give them the answer. Now he will just repeat that instead of learning about what he is mindlessly repeating. :P
I wonder if most of the traffic to Microsoft occurs around the 2nd Tuesday of every month.
> Google, Microsoft, Facebook. Arbor says there are about 30 of these 'hyper giant' companies that generate and consume about 30% of all Internet traffic.'
Who will guard the guards?
From TFA:
Arbor also notes that Internet applications used to use a more diverse set of application-specific protocols and communication stacks, but that has consolidated as well. Traffic these days is concentrated on a small number of Web and video protocols, while peer-to-peer traffic has nosedived in the past two years.
That leads to one of two conclusions:
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage. A monopoly is damage.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I think I am one of "them", or something.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Market based solutions fail when there is no market. Monopolies are not markets.
If the cost of pursuing such alternatives is buying thousands of miles of dark fiber all across the planet it's not an alternative open to very many.
ARPAnet went online in 1969, and there was no legal commercial activity on it until 1992 (and all barriers to commercial activity did not fall until 1995). The creation and architecture of the Internet has nothing to do with the "free market" whatever that means (how is a market in the USA which uses dollars free while a market in the old USSR using rubles not free?). It has to do with two decades of massive taxpayer investment in research and development for the Internet, which from 1992 to 1995 was handed over to corporations.
It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent. I got on the Internet back when SRI-NIC was the root name server, I guess in the years ahead all of that will be washed away and the history of the creation of the Internet will be rewritten as a monument to free enterprise.
Much of the "Tubes" and the routers/switches that make up the internet are owned by the telecoms & Cable Companies, which are already regulated by the FCC (at lease in the US). As phone and Data run over the same hardware, I seems logical that it would fall to the same regulatory agency... Not that I think any part of the government is free of corruption, but who would you have do it? The EPA?
What motivation does Google have to try to charge users more for traffic to Google? What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?
There was recently an article in the New Yorker that gave the following quote from Al Gore about a meeting he had with Sergey Brin and Larry Page: "They had to go to another meeting," Gore recalled, "and said, 'If you can stay, Al, we'd like to bring in the search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of the business.' Ten of them came in. Larry and Sergey left. I spent another three hours. And then, when it was over, I gave Larry and Sergey an oral report." Why are Goolge's "search-quality researchers and specialists in charge of this part of this business" consulting with Al Gore? When that is combined with the fact that Google has a PAC that gave 98% of its money to Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 election cycle and other activities indicating ties between Google and the Democratic Party it is cause to carefully watch their activities for signs that they are using their position as the search leader to skew results toward their political favorites. I am unaware of any evidence that they have done so at this point, but that doesn't mean that that won't change in the future.
The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive. That they have not so far apparently acted on that motivation does not mean that they won't in the future.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Exactly... if they are a monopoly then there are already laws on the books to take care of that... we don't need NN laws.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Sorry but that level of stupidity really got to me today. That and at the time I posted it was modded as +3 insightful was just too much for me to handle.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You manage to miss the point of the parent completely.
The biggest source of monopolies is irrefutably the government, not "capitalism", which is pretty much a bogeyman concept in most political discussions.
Your point being what exactly? That in absence of government regulation, everyone becomes a child pornographer? Or?
That's a pretty hypothetical, but the real world is more complicated.
I have only one good option for broadband. They are named Comcast. They violate net neutrality to throttle Bittorent traffic. No competitor has arisen; it seems unlikely one will, but possible a legal solution will force them to stop.
If you think you can exploit the huge market demand for unfiltered bittorrent to roll over the minor advantages Comcast enjoys as an established player, please feel free to enter the market. But don't expect me to invest in your stock.
BTW, who will you be buying "raw bandwidth" from? Why do you imagine they will not violate neutrality to do nasty things?
A more obvious explanation is that google is a major impetus behind the net neutrality push coming from the Obama administration. I guess it's possible this is all a convoluted plot for Sergey Brin to promote abortion on demand or something, but I think it's more likely google just doesn't want to get extorted by Comcast.
Until you are adequately informed, you should not comment on law or regulation. It seems you haven't heard about various ISP's (particularly Charter) shutting down Torrents when they detect the data flow. They also have throttled various other applications at times when their network is not busy, so it is not "network management". So there have been abuses. Wake up.
I have been making this point forever. There was an article years ago that stated that Yahoo! was only being charged for half of its Internet costs. In other words, only half of their traffic at the time travelled over a transit link. The other half of their traffic travelled over peering links to ISP's with large subscriber numbers. They wanted to get their content to eye balls in the least expensive and most efficient way. This should be normal business on the Internet. Transit links can cost serious money. If a large ISP can peer with a large content provider it save both parties lots of money. So is this a violation of net neutrality rules? I certainly hope not! All traffic is being treated equally. If the ISP's transit link it being filled up with P2P traffic, it may seem to the user that Yahoo! is getting preferred treatment. Is it? For all of you worrying that peering means that only large content providers like Yahoo! get quick access to users, note that large hosting companies also peer to ISP's. You don't have to be a large web site to take advantage of the peering.
Except there have been plenty of abuses, and typically at the last mile where there is no competition. If your area is only served by one pipe, good luck "routing around" that.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Monetary burden? Is that like Beast of Burden? Rest assured that when investments were made in "internet pipes", some CFO made sure that it would be profitable, and some accountant checks quarterly to ensure that it is still profitable. Urr, where's the burden? And their profitable investment should be regulated. Would you go to a dentist who invested in a chair and a drill, but does not have a license to practice, and a degree hanging on the wall? At least try to be logically consistent.
Except the telcom monopolies are legal under the existing regulations. ILECs rule their territory and anyone else wanting to offer service within their area has to end up using them in some fashion. That's where the government needs to step in and force the FCC to open competition.This happened in 1996 with the telco reform act. It was full of crap when it passed but it still managed to help for awhile, spawning CLECs that with ISPs helped bring affordable Internet access to the masses. The Bush era FCC with Powel's kid in charge rolled back the good parts of the act and effectively killed it. Now we're back to a few major media companies, a few major telco monopolies, and less competition all the time.
No, for many people, there are no alternatives. I'm really glad for you that you have them, but others do not, and acting as if this is an imaginary problem is not helping.
"a competitor might be able to gain some traction... I would start my own community ISP buying and reselling raw bandwidth"
Or... just make it so that predatory practices don't occur in the first place. And are you completely unfamiliar with barriers to entry? Have fun laying out your new distribution network for your ISP - because clearly you're not going to use existing rights of way, as those are only open to you because of dirty, nasty regulations.
"Market based solutions are not always swift, but they are usually better than legal based ones."
Ah yes - please tell that to laborers in China or India, where such solutions don't exist. Or take a look at Dickensian times, when they didn't exist in the West either. Capitalism drives a lot of personal innovation, but also rewards selfish influences (to put it mildly).
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Wait, what? You're not seriously suggesting a slashdotter had teh sexks? [Cite please.] [And pictures.]
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Porn is bad, m'kay... you shouldn't look at porn, m'kay...
Either:
A) preventing asshats from pushing people to suicide,
B) stopping porn, gambling or other sins
C) reducing free speech and/or anonymity
D) killing teh web piratez
It really a combination of the above that are the vast majority of the reasons presented to regulate the internet. Not that I agree with the reasons... and personally, I'd be okay with .betting and .porn TLDs creating virtual red light districts... the fact is you're less likely to accidentally drive down the wrong website, and it can be better filtered by those that do want it filtered... people are idiots who don't understand the words workable solution, or compromise.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
You mean my green twitter avatar didn't actually help the Iranians?
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Uhh, I suspect that it probably did little if any good. You should have helped them get I2P, TOR, Stealthnet, or to set up some VPN tunnels or something. Some avatar on a random page outside of Iran was unlikely to be seen by an Iranian, much less do anything for him.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
And I'm his job and let me tell you, the man is holding me down!
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Very simple. Lease a T-1 and peer at the closest Internet Exchange. You'll have to get an ASN, something to route BGP with and likely another full time job to pay for it all.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
I don't see Google, Microsoft, Facebook and the like laying fiber in the ground all across the country. In some cases, they are buying it. I suspect they are mostly buying lambdas and dedicated circuits *FROM* Tier 1 providers. However, instead of going over the Tier 1 providers IP network, they are buying an OC-12 directly to where their customers are.
Who would they possibly buy a point to point OC-12 from? Who has fiber in the ground and wavelength to spare? A tier 1 provider. Traffic is shifting, but not really AWAY from those who have the infrastructure to provide transit services.
Same companies, different product.
This craps on the entire reason you wanted to nickel and dime the internet. Greedy bastards.
"They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
So they switch from greenbacks to Soylent Green.
I think I've heard of that organization before, they send their employees off around the world to rape...and stuff?
That's different.
Google only did that because China forced them to. And by forced, I mean that Google didn't want to.
Google's position seems to be:
Well, we would rather have open search, but big gold conehat government won't let us unless we agree to it.
Now, if we don't go there, someone else will and will be more than happy to play 10 times dirtier than us.
Hmm...I think the chinese would be better off with a little of us than a bunch of someone else.
Don't blame google for something that the chinese government forced them into. If you want to blame them for choosing to stay and cooperate, instead of leaving a vacuum behind for someone even sleazier, go right ahead.
No need to worry, the people who run American Police Group are all Evangelicals.
They'd never do anything bad.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Market based solutions don't work AT ALL in cases of monopoly or cartel.
The thing is that for coffee, we have competition. No java factory would dare make shitty coffee (no pun intended) when their outraged customers could flock to a better brand.
It's interesting to think about how this will play out. Will the Tier-1 providers go belly up and leave us with the content providers controlling the networks used for delivery also. How would that effect network neutrality.
I realize it's not that simple, but again, it's interesting to think about.
The answer to your question "What motivation do they have to restrict access by some subset of users?" is: restricting access to information posted by those who oppose their political agenda is a fairly strong motive.
And as soon as that happens searchers can point their browsers to other search engines. Though I use mostly Google I still use Alta Vista. I also use About.com, Teoma (now Ask.com), Cuil, DMoz, and Mooter.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The great thing about the Internet is that if someone becomes disruptive, they will just be routed around.
This only works if there is no monopoly. How many choices do you have for cable? DSL? Any other broadband access? Most people don't have a choice, many can't even get broadband. At the sane tyme big businesses took hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out broadband but all they did with it was pad their pockets. Besides the $200 Billion the feds gave them state and local governments gave them more. As long as they took taxpayer money and have monopolies they should meet certain minimum requirements such as open access.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There are alternatives
Heck not everyone can get broadband period never mind have a choice. In most places that can get broadband the provider has a monopoly. Even if I had a billion dollars I would not be able to dig up the ground and lay my own fiber. Anyone who says people can get broadband from a competitor doesn't live in the real world.
I would start my own community ISP buying and reselling raw bandwidth. The worse they treat their customers the faster I would grow.
And how would you deliver it? Start digging up the ground to lay fiber and watch how fast law enforcement will put a stop to it. Try to deliver wirelessly, to get around them, and watch how fast the FCC shows up. That only leaves you with fairy dust.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Ah yes - please tell that to laborers in China or India, where such solutions don't exist.
I agreed with you up until here. Chinese and Indian laborer's lives have improved greatly since their markets have opened up. They each now have millions of millionaires as well as billionaires. Though more than 2 years old here's 2 lists of Greater China's 40 Richest and India's 40 Richest. On Fortune's List of billionaires for 2008 India has 56 and is tied with Germany.
You may think of working in one of China's factories as working in a sweat shop but Chinese compeat to get those jobs. After a few years working and saving money they can then have enough money to start their own business.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At least right now they are being governed by their customer's interests
Broadband providers are not governed by their customers' interest because most customers do not have have a choice as to who they get broadband from. Anyone in the US who disagrees, and belives most people have a choice for broadband, lives in a fantasy world.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
All the more reason for the development and mainstreaming of reliable, high bandwidth peer-to-peer ad hoc networking over wifi or wimax, or something else not controlled by telcos and googles.
With such a network how do I visit Brazilian, Chinese, Danish, Joburg, and Sydney websites?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Barriers would destroy the value of the Internet, and if any carrier were stupid enough to use them, people would scream bloody murder until they were removed.
That is not true where there is a monopoly, ask those who can only get broadband from Comcast.
Fslcon
Should there be a Law?
The FCC should get full say over what American telecom companies do.
No, the FCC should be abolished, it was only created for big media businesses who had commissioners working for them.
Now as for telecom and cable companies, they should have their monopolies removed. Allow competition and watch how they act then. With someone being able to get cable from 3 or 4 different companies watch how much Comcast will block or throttle net traffic. Better yet, allow local coops, governments, or other groups to build and own infrastructure but then require them to sell access to providers. Coop X owns the fiber but Comcast can sell access, along with ATT, and Mom and Pop ISP.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Many Bush appointees are still entrenched in the govt. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read some news once in a while.
Name one of them that is in the FCC.
Michael J Coops appointed to the FCC by Bush in 2001. Robert M. McDowell, appointed to the FCC by Bush in 2006. That's 2 FCC commissioners appointed by Bush who are still on the FCC board.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent.
Net history has been rewritten but to say without that without the government there would not be a network like the internet is to ignore or be ignorant of history also. That I know of, there may of been some earlier, the earliest network I known of was setup in 1969 as Compu-Serv Network, Inc. by an insurance company. After the birth of homebrew computers or microcomputers in the 1970s bulletin board systems or BBSes started cropping up. People, especially here on slashdot, complain how made up Mathew Broderick's "WarGames" was but back then there were BBSes and people did wardial looking for BBSes and any other computer connected to the phone lines. (Okay I know some people's complaint is about a thinking WOPR.)
Without government it would have taken longer but a network of networks would still have been developed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage. A monopoly is damage.
A monopoly is not capitalism, and capitalism does try to route around damage.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
stock holders
If you get rid of stockholders there won't be many investments made. Who would invest without a possibility of some payback? How much did the Soviet Union invent, without forced labor camps?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You don't need to goto China
www.google.cn
Compare results for "tieanamin square"
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Nevermind, missed the sarcasm. Sorry.
"I have a great idea, let me build the next iconic WiFi network (NetX) that allows Cell and PC's to use the frequency - only to find out that 5 years later it causes cancer, or impacts health somehow to the detrminent of tens of millions of Americans.
That's capitalism???? That's irresponsible and wrong."
Your contention is that in the absence of government regulation, private companies (or in common parlance 'capitalism unfettered') will run rampant, and poison, cripple and eventaully kill their customers for short sighted profit.
You want to know something? That is pretty much what you already have today, despite this regulation that supposedly protects us. The real function that this 'consumer protection' does is to give free passes to big, well-connected companies to fuck consumers, and to burden their minor, less-connected competitiors to the point where they cannot market their alternatives that get held up in certification and testing, or they break under the administrative strain. Or both.
You MUST be new here. Welcome to Earth!
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
You move. :D
Besides: You say "full time job" as if it were something good that you would like to keep. You realize that it's basically slavery nowadays, and even if not, that a job means your life's work will be devoted to someone else, making him a person to be found in history books, while your whole existence will be forgotten in a couple of generations. And that there are much better alternatives. Like *yourself* being the guy on top, that will be found in history books.
It's that thing called "freedom". But I doubt you, or anyone, really still know what it once meant.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Oh good.
Perhaps you can explain to the GP how he can go about casting off the shackles of oppressive full-time employment to step up to the pinnacle of glorious on-toppedness, while still managing to feed his family.
But please, keep it brief so us slaves have time to read it.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
As an ISP, you have 3 things:
- stuff you provide on your own network (ISP email, webspace, etc)
- paths to other networks via peering agreements (IX's etc)
- paths to other networks via transit providers (your so called Tier 1's)
All that is happening here is that the amount of traffic pushed over peering links is getting bigger, mainly because a switchport at an IX is way cheaper (and faster, better latency etc) than going via your transit over the internet for it.
No conspiracy here, move along.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.