|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
> > P2P based CDN's are a current buzzword; P2P based CDN's might be a current buzzword, but are nothing more than P2P technology in a different cloak. No new news here. > This should prove to be interesting. The Video CDN model will be a > threat to far more operators than P2P has been to the music industry. > > Cable companies make significant revenue from video content (ok - that > was obvious). Since they are also IP Network operators they have a > vested interest in seeing that video CDN's that bypass their primary > revenue stream fail. The ILEC's are building out fiber mostly so that > they can compete with the cable companies with a triple play solution. > I can't see them being particularly supportive of this either. As a > wireless network operator I'm not terribly interested in helping 3rd > parties that cause issue on my network with upload traffic (rant away > about how were getting paid by the end user to carry this traffic...). At the point where an IP network operator cannot comprehend (or, worse, refuses to comprehend) that every bit received on the Internet must be sourced from somewhere else, then I wish them the best of luck with the legislated version of "network neutrality" that will almost certainly eventually result from their shortsighted behaviour. You do not get a free pass just because you're a wireless network operator. That you've chosen to model your network on something other than a 1:1 ratio isn't anyone else's problem, and if it comes back to haunt you, oh well. It's nice that you can take advantage of the fact that there are currently content-heavy and eyeball-heavy networks, but to assume that it must stay that way is foolish. It's always nice to maintain some particular model for your operations that is beneficial to you. It's clearly ideal to be able to rely on overcommit in order to be able to provide the promises you've made to customers, rather than relying on actual capacity. However, this will assume that there is no fundamental change in the way things work, which is a bad assumption on the Internet. This problem is NOTHING NEW, and in fact, shares some significant parallels with the way Ma Bell used to bill out long distance vs local service, and then cried and whined about how they were being undercut by competitive LD carriers. They ... adapted. Can you? Will you? And yes, I realize that this borders on unfair-to-the-(W)ISP, but if you are incapable of considering and contemplating these sorts of questions, then that's a bad thing. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
|