Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTunes delivery has gotten really slow on TWC. Chumps. I pay fro 30Mb internet and initial load time is still laggy.

This whole thing is so short sighted. In the end the solution of choice will become bit torrent...again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
As I paint my face blue and get on my horse, my kilt flaps in the air as I scream: THEY MAKE TAKE OUR LIVES BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE MY INTERNET FREEDOM!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
iTunes delivery has gotten really slow on TWC. Chumps. I pay fro 30Mb internet and initial load time is still laggy.

This whole thing is so short sighted. In the end the solution of choice will become bit torrent...again.


What if apple doesnt have enough bandwidth to support everyone at their maximum bandwidth

----------

I absolutely can blame them. They should be putting that money towards abolishing this absurd notion of internet fast lanes.


They are not buying a fast lane

----------

I think you need to re-read Wheeler's proposal: "pay-for-priority arrangements"
http://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

This basically means he's leaving the table open for QoS on specific services. I'm not saying that is what Apple, Netflix, or anyone else is currently doing, but Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, et al are pushing for the ability to do so.

I've got no problem with paid/free peering agreements, but the ISPs can't force someone to peer with them. If Apple wants to create it's own CDN and purchase way more capacity from transit networks, like TATA, Level3, Cogent, Hurricane Electric, et al than more the power to them. ISPs shouldn't be able to purposely degrade services though because they want to force a CDN into a paid peering agreement with them. The only reason they can do this in the US is because we don't have an open market on last mile access, unlike much of the civilized world.


You can host a cdn with level 3 or cogent, but building a cdn and then buying transit from a tier 1 network is defeating the point of a cdn
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
Again, Comcast can still block/degrade Apple's content, they'd just be doing it on the local servers instead of the remote servers.

Exactly.

Apple is not (in this instance) paying ISPs for fast-lane packet filtering. They are simply installing servers across multiple geographic locations so that it takes ISPs less time to find and deliver the Apple content we request. Short hops are better than long ones.

BTW, if you (generic "you", not directed at MikhailT) are experiencing slow download speeds from Apple compared to the other places you get downloads, it's worth checking to see if you are using an open DNS resolver like OpenDNS or Google DNS. They are known to point to CDN servers that are geographically close to their DNS resolvers --- which might be very distant from where you are. You end up getting content served by a CDN that is both far from you (high latency) and also heavily loaded by all of the requests pouring in through that open DNS resolver.

I had that problem (made especially noticeable by iTunes Match) and got around it by running a local DNS cache and installing Unbound from Homebrew. I configured it to let my local ISP resolve DNS for Apple and Amazon content (thus using CDNs near me) and OpenDNS for everything else. I don't use Netflix, but if I did, I would bypass OpenDNS for that, too.

Installing and configuring Unbound is simple for many (10 to 20 minutes if you know what you're doing), however for me it was a real head-scratcher because it was the first time doing that kind of thing. The effort was definitely worth it, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
They are not buying a fast lane

----------

You can host a cdn with level 3 or cogent, but building a cdn and then buying transit from a tier 1 network is defeating the point of a cdn

1. As I stated, they probably are not buying a fast lane now, but that is the end result ISPs in the US are seeking to accomplish. Read the FCC proposal.

2. The point of a CDN is to get your content as close to the eyeball networks as possible, not necessarily peering with every ISP on the planet. This is why internet exchange points are so popular around the world, couple that with Anycast DNS for geolocation services, and you've got yourself a CDN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
Going directly to certain ISPs to pay for faster access for delivering your content goes directly against net neutrality. Paying anything for delivering specific content online is not neutral. I'm sorry, but I think you're the one who is confused here. This gives Apple an unfair advantage as they can buy their way to better service—when net neutrality states that every company should have equality of service online.

However, I do think Apple should be a leader in pushing for an open internet. Considering Steve Jobs' vision for the internet and sharing knowledge going back decades, you'd think it would be ingrained in their entire mindset that the internet needs to be protected and open. And maybe they do think that. But considering their position as a leader in the technology world, they are in a prime position to actually do something about it and influence the path being taken. So far they haven't really done much. We'll see.



Thank you, well stated :)

No, that's not what it means. You're listening to what the ISPs and fear-mongers are saying, not what the actual meaning is.

It basically means that the ISPs must treat all data packets the same, it cannot isolate or filter packets for different benefits. It has nothing to do with speed.

In this case, Apple's simply buying bandwidth for its local edge servers around the world in order to have a local cache of Apple's files. That allows customers in UK to grab from Apple's UK servers instead of Apple paying a UK company to hold the cache and serve it to UK customers. ISPs, transmit and other companies are the only one you can buy bandwidth from, that's why it is easily confuse this with network neutrality when it is not.

It does NOT tell ISPs to treat Apple data packets differently from other packet. It is the same packets, just from a local server instead of a remote one. It does not guarantee faster experience since the server is limited just like any other servers. The difference is mainly latency and localized set of traffic, in other words, only UK customers grab files from the Apple's UK servers (short trip, makes it quicker to grab files), US customers from US servers, etc etc (more bandwidth for each locations to be served to the specific ones).

Again, Comcast can still block/degrade Apple's content, they'd just be doing it on the local servers instead of the remote servers.

Isn't this essentially what we're stating? It seems you're somewhat picking on word usage than actual ideology. We weren't discussing semantics of HOW they can do it, but the fact is they CAN do it, just as you stated. :)
 
Last edited:
Wait.. people actually complaining that Apple is doing something to get movies and music downloaded faster to us?

Now I know people on the Internet will complain about everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
How the hell would an entire neighborhood running your magical WIFIs give you anything beyond what your ISP is going to give you?

Neighborhood? You're grossly underestimating the scale of overlapping WiFi routers in most urban/suburban regions. Add some well-placed narrow-beam/laser bridges to connect them, incentivized via buy-in from big-content single-source providers (Netflix etc) wanting to bypass major ISPs, and a viable large-scale mesh network is doable.

Remember, the whole point of the Internet's origins was to route around blockages. Belligerent ISPs are little more than blockages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
On the surface this is great. The people with fast internet speeds will love it.

For all the people outside the US and select EU countries who have poor internet speeds (there is a lot of us) we don't see much change at all in the download speeds.

I am aware this is our ISP's problem and not Apple's problem. My point is till the majority of ISP's get off their asses and offer decent internet for a decent price, we wont notice these changes Apple want to make if they get their own CDN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
CDN has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

CDN is fine - they are paying to have caching services within the ISPs networks. It doesn't affect the users bandwidth to access something else.

Violating net neutrality would be paying the IPSs to have dedicated bandwidth all the way from the user to Apple's central servers - that would impact bandwidth to something else.

Big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
Why did apple doooo this? NET NEUTRALITY :/

I would have hope apple would have stand up for net neutrality.

Hate to break it to you, but the internet has never been "equal." And why should it be? Shouldn't large consumers pay more for the network resources they use? Why have small-timers subsidize the network usage of large timers? And how does it affect small-timers if Apple pays a private company to build a private pipeline? It doesn't tear down the existing pipelines. In fact, it keeps those existing pipelines clear for other users.

Apparently, net neutrality laws are proposed to help the "little guy" but regulation always backfires on the little guy, just as net neutrality regulations will do (since with net neutrality, small-timers will subsidize heavy consumers instead of allowing ISPs to charge those heavy consumers directly for the bandwidth that they use).

The argument for net neutrality is based on fear tactics trying to scare people into supporting even more regulation in our already over-regulated lives. It might seem "unfair" and unsettling to liberal voters that bigger companies have access to "fast" lanes, but this access only improves user experience for the end-user, and does not impede a small-timers chances to compete against larger companies, since small-timers won't need expensive infrastructure to handle smaller bandwidth needs.

----------

CDN has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

CDN is fine - they are paying to have caching services within the ISPs networks. It doesn't affect the users bandwidth to access something else.

Violating net neutrality would be paying the IPSs to have dedicated bandwidth all the way from the user to Apple's central servers - that would impact bandwidth to something else.

Big difference.

Part of CDN is having the direct pipeline from Apple servers to end users, which apparently violates net neutrality. But as I mentioned earlier, this "violation" doesn't necessarily impact bandwidth available for another small-time content provider to deliver content to end users. Of course, with net neutrality regulations, small-time content providers WOULD end up subsidizing network usage costs of big-time content providers (or taking hits in delivery speed/quality), since ISPs couldn't charge big-time providers directly for the bandwidth that they use.
 
not that much about neutrality

A CDN from Apple doesn't mean they don't support net neutrality, it just means they have a lot of traffic and want to reduce cost by distributing servers to the locations their downloads happen most. That way reducing the geographic distance data has to travel, reducing their CO2 footprint per download and reducing their weight on the network. This CDN might even be used to break low-priority deliveries, by circumventing their network. So over all, this just helps strengthen the network to, for example, be able to provide live streaming to your Apple TV in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
Apple is better off leaving this with third parties. Apple doesn't understand networking.

Kind of a bold statement since Apple is one of the few domains from which I receive download speeds at a full 50 Mbps. I think they fully understand that quality networking is key to user experience, and are being proactive by working with ISPs to build their own CDN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
Double Dipping

The companies that are purely supposed to be un-biased pipelines are charging the content companies for the general connection to their pipelines and then also charging them to use it per file transfer. If this keeps snowballing like it has the last three months, consumer prices for downloadable content of any kind will increase significantly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
Why should ISPs be regulated like utilities? Why should utilities be regulated like utilities? The only reason to regulate a utility is if government uses progressive policy to block free market competition.
LOL. Just saw this. You answered your own question, albeit with something you probably heard on Fox News! Hilarious, professor!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sd70mac
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.