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...
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!"
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?
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!
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!
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.
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
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.