Slashdot Mirror
Google Now Serves 25% of North American Internet Traffic
sturgeon writes "Wired Magazine claims today that Google is now 25% of the North American traffic with a mostly unreported (and rapidly expanding), massive deployment of edge caching servers in almost every Internet provider around the world. Whether users are directly using a Google service (i.e. search, YouTube) or the devices are automatically sending data (e.g. Google Analytics, updates), the majority of end devices around the world will now send traffic to Google server during the course of an average day. It looks like Wired based their story on a report from cloud analytics and network management company DeepField."
That headline is confusing, considering there is a service called Google Now which is known not for its data consumption but its heavy battery draining capabilities.
All of the world's traffic is sent through an NSA server during the course of an average day.
The NSA Now Spies on 25% of North American Internet Traffic
Lol, jk, it's more.
Google is now 25% of the North American traffic...
I have never been a CEO, an probably will never be, but what I wanted to know is what exactly goes on in a CEO's mind (say Steve Ballmer), once a statistic/detail like this is outed.
What really goes on in a mind like his?
Not necessarily so.
And worse, the test methodology linked from the post is based on a three-year-old sketchy (and perhaps wheezing vacuum cleaner) and doesn't point to validation as a cumulative measurement. In other words, a bit suspect.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
CDN (Content Distribution Networks) are even more "God-like". They serve most traffic for the biggest players, like Microsoft.
The stats, metadata, and content must be quite interesting.
Since they are including Youtube as part of this traffic, I can see why it would be such a high percentage. Nearly every other Google service is pretty low bandwidth, but many people, including myself, now use Youtube as a replacement for TV. So I'm not suprised by this statistic at all.
You might want to clarify what you mean - presumably residential customers. After all, most businesses and colo facilities are ISP customers as well.
A relatively small local ISP has 2-3 google devices in their DCs, so that doesn't surprise me Went to do some traceroutes and noticed they were serving all my google traffic to me. Turns out it's at google's request
Just to be clear: the title of this story should be interpreted "The combined traffic of Google's internet properties now account for 25% of all Internet traffic in North America."
Not, as I thought upon my first reading, "Google's mobile device software package, "Google Now", accounts for 25% of all Internet traffic in North America." That made me do a spit-take.
Unfortunately is not that much, because most people would not know how to appropiately configure them, or be afraid, or should be afraid because depend on insecure software anyway. But would be a way to regain some privacy for most, hosting their own mail server, owncloud or similar solutions, and hosting their own web based software.
Trying to block out google analytics using various add-ons has been an enlightening experience to say the least. The majority of websites out there have links to third party tracking sites, google analytics figuring highly among them. Trying to exist on the internet without revealing some aspect of one's identity, even for the most mundane thing -- a search for information, is becoming very difficult.
Even here on Slashdot, they've blocked Tor. Amusing -- they let anyone post "anonymously", and unless of course you actually try to post anonymously you might believe it. If a website that caters to those most likely to understand privacy on the internet can't get it right...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
What if the router at home was somewhat more beefy and could have a few gigabytes of flash and a little cloud-OS... it doesn't need to be on a computer at home and would be totally out of your control.
Can you imagine the explosion in Internet traffic if ISP customers were allowed to host servers?
Why Yes! Thank you for bringing it up in the first post. Go ahead and follow this rabbit trail if you are more interested in the situation-
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993
I've used the fact that GoogleFiber was my first ISP choice involving IPv6 to press a new novel interpretation of NetworkNeutrality. It seems to be going somewhere. ComIntercept(FCC->Google):
"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R. // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.
We are forwarding a copy of the informal complaint so that you may satisfy or answer the informal complaint based on a thorough review of all relevant records and other information. You should respond in writing specifically and comprehensively to all material allegations raised in the informal complaint, being sure not to include the specifics of any confidential settlement discussions. ...
Your written response to the informal complaint must be filed with the Commission contact listed below by U.S. mail and e-mail by July 29, 2013. On that same day, you must mail and e-mail your response to Douglas McClendon.
The parties shall retain all records that may be relevant to the informal complaint until final Commission disposition of the informal complaint or of any formal complaint that may arise from this matter. See 47 C.F.R. //1.812-17. (seriously, can't I and Google just depend on the NSA's backups of our records? :)
Failure of any person to answer any lawful Commission inquiry is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine... ... ...
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_notice_of_informal_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/mcclendon_oct24_2012_complaint.pdf [cloudsession.com]
This represents Google getting 'served' this week, my form 2000F 'informal' 53 page complaint that suggests that NetNeutrality provides protections against ISP blocking to my home servers as well as to Skype's. Google has been compelled by the government to respond to me on July 29th. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service prohibit hosting any kind of server without prior written permission against your residential connection. And zero transparency for any alternate server-allowed plan rates, or what kinds of reasons they might use to disallow a requested written permission (which is laughable as the FCC 10-201 NetNeutrality document goes out of it's way to laud Tim Berner Lee's invention of the web atop tcp/ip, specifically, without having to have gotten any permission from any government or network provider)
I forwarded the documents to schneier@schneier.com and requested any insight he might have into the matter. I got an email response (theoretically perhaps spoofed) that read "Thanks.\n\nGood Luck."
Most home routers have hardware capable of this (after plugging in a USB drive for storage) but the included OS doesn't support it.
I don't get it...
Youtube is pretty light on full-length movies and TV episodes, and it's still not extremely common that their videos are available in high definition.
Netflix and Hulu both have much more multi-hour content, higher-quality content that more people are likely to want to watch, and they have most of it in highdef, eating up the pipes. I've ever considered Hulu as a free, viable replacement for live TV, now that their offerings are so extensive, and even includes nightly news programs (only glaring exception is up-to-date PBS programming like NOVA, Frontline, American Experience, Secrets of the Dead, Nature, This Old House, etc.), but both myself and my ISP are quite happy that I find an OTA antenna a superior option for the foreseeable future.
I find it very hard to believe that Youtube is so massively beating out all the higher quality video providers, and can only conclude that the data is massively flawed, as TFA starts suggesting about half-way through.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
But the problem is that residential ISPs don't want to have to actually provide "internet service". What they really want to provide is the much simpler and more profitable "client only internet service". I.e. GoogleFiber's 'evil' terms of service-
ComIntercept (FCC->GoogleFiber)" // 1.41. Also attached is Mr. McClendon's October 24, 2012 complaint forwarded to the FCC by the Kansas Office of the Attorney General. Mr. McClendon asserts that Google's policy prohibiting use of its fixed broadband internet service (Google Fiber connection) to host any type of server violates the Open Internet Order, FCC 10-201, and the Commission's rules at 47 C.F.R. // 8.1-11.
"The enclosed informal complaint, dated September 1, 2012, has been filed with the Commission by Douglas McClendon against Google pursuant to section 1.41 of Comissions's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929983&cid=44170993
No, if you had a dollar for every percent, you'd have 25$. But that's really not a lot of money.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Please Google, don't screw us. We have put our faith and internet traffic into you. We have rested our emails, the contents of our cell phones, our family photos, and favorite restaurants with you. Please don't be a d&^k and do anything stupid like turn into a giant conglomerate who controls all of Earth's resources and keeps them for only the super wealthy, while the poor are confined to a desolate existence - or something like that I have seen in the Science Fiction movies.
Parsing please.......
Is this "Google Now" serving 25%......or "Google" now serving 25%.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Google Now is horrible!
I'm pretty sure that if self-hosting stuff [on a residential conneciton] in the US were allowed as elsewhere, then there'd surely be way, WAY more user-friendly server software out there.
I'm pretty sure Windows XP would have had a "host your website" tool, or something like that.
Nothing stopping you from using a PC as a router. 2 NICs + Linux or BSD, and some knowledge about how their respective packet filtering tools work, and there you go.
It is involved, and requires lots of networking knowledge, but a lot of fun.
I think you mean WWW ...
Google, NSA, what's the difference?
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Excellent. I always wondered what gave these M.... F.... the right to do this. The ISPs claim that the riot of traffic to your server would clobber your neighbors' bandwidth. (IE they'd have to actually invest in fiber. Or actually charge you a fair rate for that increased traffic. But it always seemed that the real answer was more sinister.) In this case, that excuse doesn't wash, and so I too wish you good luck.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson