Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Forging Deals with ISPs to Bolster Delivery of iTunes, Apps, and iCloud Content to Users
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What if apple doesnt have enough bandwidth to support everyone at their maximum bandwidth
----------
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
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.
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.
Thank you, well stated
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:
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.
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.
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.
As the article says, these are all handled by a 3rd party...
I was well aware before you pointed it out. However, you clearly didn't understand my response.
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.
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.
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.
----------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL. Just saw this. You answered your own question, albeit with something you probably heard on Fox News! Hilarious, professor!