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.
I absolutely can blame them. They should be putting that money towards abolishing this absurd notion of internet fast lanes.
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.
Again, Comcast can still block/degrade Apple's content, they'd just be doing it on the local servers instead of the remote servers.
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
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.
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.
How the hell would an entire neighborhood running your magical WIFIs give you anything beyond what your ISP is going to give you?
As the article says, these are all handled by a 3rd party...![]()
Why did apple doooo this? NET NEUTRALITY :/
I would have hope apple would have stand up for net neutrality.
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.
Apple is better off leaving this with third parties. Apple doesn't understand networking.
LOL. Just saw this. You answered your own question, albeit with something you probably heard on Fox News! Hilarious, professor!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.