Cringely has a theory and it involves Google and Verizon,
but it doesn't involve net neutrality:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=2
Hi!
Cringely has a theory and it involves Google and Verizon,
but it doesn't involve net neutrality:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=2
Woow this is fantactic news. Oh wait. Didnt Akamai invent this years ago?
Bye,
Raymond.
nytimes==troll (when it comes to technology)
I'd assumed this would have been everyone's guess when the stories first appeared.
It's not even a particularly new idea for Google, but it's probably the first time the media has heard of it.
adam.
I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember correctly. So it's at least a decade ago 
What I find funny is that Google has already been running these kinds of content distribution nodes in Africa for over a year.
It makes a significant difference to the user experience when you reduced the RTT to the content servers by 200-400ms
* Graham Beneke:
WSJ has live updates on the google - verizon release
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/08/09/live-blogging-the-google-verizon-net-neutrality-announcement/
* Graham Beneke:
I helped install my first Akamai cluster before year 2000 if I remember
correctly. So it's at least a decade agoWhat I find funny is that Google has already been running these kinds
of content distribution nodes in Africa for over a year.They certainly have got infrastructure all over the globe.
Hmmm. "If it plays in [insert name of locale in Africa]" will not have
the same ring as "Peoria." For the older genset anyway. Maybe if it rhymes? Spoken to a musical backdrop? The current crop of youts will
not hesitate once.
The Verizon is probably just a private peering agreement, and someone
misinterpreted that (or deliberately misrepresented it).
Or it was supposed to be a secret. G was still denying any sort of
agreement with V, last I heard.
Reese
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements
and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.
Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' -
something they deny in the call?
I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112
j
The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection
which violates every users privacy.
Zaid
Nor ensure 'lawful' content
Do you *really* want to go there?
This is Google we're talking about here, though.
- Matt
how is that though? you COULD do something odd like say: "Anything to
zaid-ali's netblocks is preferred in queues over things to
jolymacfie's netblocks. that wouldn't require any DPI at all, just a
traffic classification engine on/near the endpoint, say like on the
DocSIS modem, or on the handset itself... many handsets are unix-ish
things with some ability to do 'firewall' things, certainly they could
mark packets outbound, certainly at peering points a network could
classify in simple ways and mark packets properly there as well.
nothing required DPI, unless you want to delve into: "That is not ssh
on port 22"
port 443 is the new port 80! woot!
-chris
Or even simplier, sell seperate TDM circuits. Although some people think there is only a single network, Internet; in practice the Internet has always been just one of many different networks built on top of various telecommunication facilities.
Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2? Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same performance?
Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2?
Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same
performance?
I think that statement may confuse metrics like performance and capacity, with the action of intentionally QOS'ing Netflix over Youtube over the same uplink. One is a reality, and one offers disturbing possibilities.
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer. The last mile is
'usually' where congestion really hits. Why not build a portal for
consumers to go in an choose what's important to them? I know some MPLS VPN
providers do something similar (have a portal businesses can use to view and
modify QoS settings). I'd love to be able to prioritize Netflix over
youtube or bittorrent or whatever games my kids are playing since I mainly
use Netflix to watch movies. But I wouldn't like the big guys dictating
what is important to me.
I don't see providers ever pushing it that far down the stream. Would you be
willing to pay more for your consumer connection to maintain those types of
features? Business connections, absolutely.
It's really about controlling bandwidth on the shared link, not your
individual home connection. So for connectivity feeding a neighborhood or
apartment building the question arises do you allow multiple users to use
all of the bandwidth for P2P and crowd out your Netflix traffic? The
question is should Netflix have to pay more to ensure quality service to
their streaming subscribers?
I view this exercise as paying for priority when the circuit is full -- like
a special carpool lane. It's not like the provider will randomly send you
traffic you don't want. If Netflix sucks do you blame your provider or
Netflix? In the end, do you switch providers or cancel Netflix? My guess is
most consumers will cancel Netflix before they switch their Internet
provider.
Not saying that this can't be abused by providers not having in enough
capacity and content companies bidding to be most important on the circuit.