Google Fiber: No Charge For Peering, No Fast Lanes 238
An anonymous reader writes "Addressing the recent controversy over Netflix paying ISPs directly for better data transfer speeds, Google's Director of Network Engineering explains how their Fiber server handles peering. He says, 'Bringing fiber all the way to your home is only one piece of the puzzle. We also partner with content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and Akamai) to make the rest of your video's journey shorter and faster. (This doesn't involve any deals to prioritize their video 'packets' over others or otherwise discriminate among Internet traffic — we don't do that.) Like other Internet providers, Google Fiber provides the 'last-mile' Internet connection to your home. ... So that your video doesn't get caught up in this possible congestion, we invite content providers to hook up their networks directly to ours. This is called 'peering,' and it gives you a more direct connection to the content that you want. ... We don't make money from peering or colocation; since people usually only stream one video at a time, video traffic doesn't bog down or change the way we manage our network in any meaningful way — so why not help enable it?'"
Why? (Score:0, Insightful)
Why is there not a slashvertisment tag on this story?
We don't make money from peering or colocation (Score:5, Insightful)
So what do you make money from if I become a Google Fiber customer? That's what I'm concerned about. If it's just the fair-market cost of the service I'm paying for, then that's fine. If your noble stance hides the fact that you attach yourself to the fiber like a tick to suck value by monitoring my use of the service and selling that information to the highest bidder, then we have a problem.
Who is "we"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your noble stance hides the fact that you attach yourself to the fiber like a tick to suck value by monitoring my use of the service and selling that information to the highest bidder, then we have a problem.
Why do "we" have a problem?
There are plenty of people (including myself) that would happily trade the devil we know (Comcast/Quest/etc) for the unknown of reasonably priced much faster connection speed, which just happens to also give Google some aggregate data.
I'm not really a fan of Google collections - I use their services sparingly for just that reason. But I think the value tradeoff in that case is pretty decent and only Google really has the power to break through local connection monopolies.
Re: terminology (Score:2, Insightful)
He didn't. Blame Soulskill for that one.
Re:Who is "we"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus it is beyond naive to assume that Comcast/Verizon/etc are not "attaching themselves to the fiber like a tick" to sell your usage stats.
Re:We don't make money from peering or colocation (Score:5, Insightful)
Google makes its money by surfing the wave of new technology with advertisements on its wetsuit. If they roll out better internet access they can roll out better services which they can then stick ads on. You don't think they directly make any real amount of money from maintaining Chrome, do you? But they certainly have pushed what they can do through web technologies which in turn allows them to offer more or better services, and that ends up affecting their bottom line.
Is it sad that-- (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it sad that we've come so far as to have a company make a press release assuring customers and peering partners, that they will continue to abide by industry practices that have existed for decades?
Re:terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
They list their peering policy as Selective in their peeringdb entry https://www.peeringdb.com/priv... [peeringdb.com]. They should have an open peering policy. Or is only open if you are a interesting content provider?
Probably. So what is wrong with that? "Interesting" to Google Fiber would be a content provider that is starting to use up enough transit bandwidth that it makes sense to move them to a peering port. That is always how things have worked on the Internet.
Muni Fiber (Score:5, Insightful)
Municipal fiber is the way to go. It would change the world and give the US economy a badly needed shot in the arm.
ISP costs have risen four times faster than inflation. We're on the road to having just two national providers. When that happens, costs will go up even faster.
1) Designate ISPs as common carriers.
2) Break up any ISP that provides content.
3) Take a bow for having brought about the digital revolution part 2.
Unfortunately, our elected jackoffs are too beholden to corporate money to do anything like this. Obama, who was supposed to be the first president who "got" the Internet, turned out to be the worst of the bunch, appointing telecom lobbyist Tom Wheeler has head of the FCC, and they're not poised to put the last nail in the Net Neutrality coffin. Obama is a failed president on that count alone.
Because they compete (Score:5, Insightful)
"So why does Netflix have to pay?"
Because Netflix competes with Comcast/TWC/AT&T's ka-ching buckets-of-money-spinning video distribution platforms. If Netflix gets popular enough, Comcast is reduced to a dumb internet pipe for $50 a month (profit of $5), not a primarily a video provider ($100+ bills, profits of $20+).
Which is the problem. If Comcast *were* an internet-tube provider (only), they'd generally be pro-peering. They might try to charge Netflix some (they like money), if the market would bear it, but mostly it's to their advantage to peer. However, most of the ISPs in the US are not pure-internet providers, so if Comcast video can use Comcast internet to hamstring Netflix, that's a natural reaction.
Re:terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
Fiber server? huh?
I realize that it's all marketing hooey, but I wish that the director of network engineering for google wouldn't mish mash terminology like that. Keep that for the marketing droids.
Well, we could get all wrapped up in semantics, but let's not, m'kay? The real message is that Google gets it when it comes to making networks run efficiently. They aren't deliberately introducing an artificial scarcity in order to squeeze more revenue out of their "investement". They're selling a service using a 21st century business model, unlike the LEC's who still long for the days when a T1 would fetch $1,200 per month.
Re:terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
The price of a T1 has not changed because it is entirely obsolete. No one sane would want one, and specialty items are expensive.
In places with competitive markets, you can get the SLA you want with the technology you want.