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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
Herpes for sure.
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
Robert Malcolm McDowell ... the head of the FCC?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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
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.
I think I am one of "them", or something.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
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?
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?"