Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

Re: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

Medical Treatment for Tinnitus — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:39:29 -0000

This is really insane stuff. $1 million wow

Re: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

Wes Felter — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:05:22 -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.

Re: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

Small Webmaster — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:41:54 -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.

Re: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

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

Good analysis, Ryan.

Re: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

DB — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:09:02 -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?

Re: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

Wes Felter — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:32:09 -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.

Re: Edge-Caching vs. Preferential Treatment

Small Webmaster — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:16:03 -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 CoolNewInternetGarageStartu... 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?"