Comments on: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

By: Cindy P Dennis

Cindy P Dennis — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:32:26 +0000

Excellent, entertaining, useful reading, Thanks !!

By: nutrition foods

nutrition foods — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:11:18 +0000

Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.

By: Coming to an ISP Near You: Google Servers | Cord Blomquist

Coming to an ISP Near You: Google Servers | Cord Blomquist — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 07:39:25 +0000

[...] Ryan Radia on the difference between Internet “fast lanes” and “short lanes” [...]

By: Medical Treatment for Tinnitus

Medical Treatment for Tinnitus — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:39:29 +0000

This is really insane stuff. $1 million wow

By: Coming to an ISP Near You: Google Servers | OpenMarket.org

Coming to an ISP Near You: Google Servers | OpenMarket.org — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:55:30 +0000

[...] Ryan Radia on the difference between Internet “fast lanes” and “short lanes” [...]

By: HorsesAss.Org » Blog Archive » Do Amazon and Microsoft Still Support Net Neutrality?

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:35:41 +0000

[...] blogs from both the civil liberties left and the free market right have supposedly debunked Monday’s hot Wall Street Journal article about Google reversing [...]

By: Wes Felter

Wes Felter — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:05:22 +0000

I think it's misleading to say that Google won't have to pay for its edge caches. They have to buy the hardware, which could amount to over $1M.

By: Small Webmaster

Small Webmaster — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:41:54 +0000

The trouble is, Akamai will let you serve up a small number of pages very expensively but Google is putting entire applications on their servers. This is something that is not practical to do with Akamai. Also, a little guy has to pay Akamai, handsomely, but Google will not have to pay anyone. The ISPs will gladly host their servers for free. So the big guy gets for free what the little guys can barely afford.

By: Bret Swanson

Bret Swanson — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:09:24 +0000

Good analysis, Ryan.

By: DB

DB — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:09:00 +0000

Here's the real question: If you operate a CDN, does that make you a "broadband service provider"?

In the Dorgan NN bill, "broadband service provider" is defined as "a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free."

If these servers are co-located within the ISP networks, aren't they facilities used to provide broadband service?

Even if Google did not violate NN, doesn't edge-caching now make them subject to any NN legislation? Therefore, don't they have to offer non-discriminatory edge-caching on their co-located servers to any business on the Web? Therefore, if these edge-caching servers serve exclusively Google content, isn't that a violation of NN?

By: Wes Felter

Wes Felter — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:32:09 +0000

If you're too small to justify owning your own edge caches, you can rent caching service from Akamai. As expensive as Akamai is, it's cheaper than building your own CDN unless you are really large.

By: Small Webmaster

Small Webmaster — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:16:03 +0000

Google's edge caching is preferential treatment. Of the worst kind. To see this, you just have to take off the doctrinaire glasses of the "network neutrality" activists, who are myopically focused on the pipes and on bashing and regulating ISPs (and are also mostly funded by Google).

Think about it. It's obvious that Google will be able to place an edge cache at the site of any ISP it wants, probably for free. Why? Because YouTube and its related services consume SO much bandwidth that the ISP would be crazy to say no. The ISP would surely save big on its backbone connection. Terabytes per month on YouTube alone. That's money in the bank right there. And service would be faster, too.

But would an ISP allow just any content provider to put a cache at its sites, for free or even for money? Doubtful. Caches take up space and power and require access for maintenance. The ISP needs to be strongly motivated, by big bandwidth savings, even to consider it. And only big companies like Google have that to offer. If a small Internet startup were to call your local cable company and ask for "co-location space," the person there would probably say, "That’s not a product we sell to the public." That is, if the person who answered the phone at the cable company even knew what it was.

And of course, would-be competitors of Google won’t be able to buy space on Google’s private edge caches.

So, in what way is this neutral? Google can get its servers into places where CoolNewInternetGarageStartup.com can’t, and can make its services more responsive than the startup's. Therefore, Google is indeed getting preferential access to infrastructure. It’s just that the infrastructure happens to be co-location space instead of pipes. And it has a big advantage there, because co-location is much more difficult to obtain than bandwidth. You can get any Internet carrier to sell you a pipe. But co-location space at ISPs, which is more cost-effective than buying pipes, isn’t necessarily even available to you unless you’re Google. So this is really, really anticompetitive. And how could anyone say it was "neutral?"

By: MikeRT

MikeRT — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:50:13 +0000

It also helps too that in cases like this, it makes it that much harder to argue that big content providers are hogging bandwidth, when they are paying to be closer to their users.