> 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.