Apple's Content Delivery Network Now Live, Making Faster OS X/iOS Downloads Possible

[GeneralChang]

I'll correct you then because you've got it all backwards.

First, this isn't a "rumor". Second, this *is* about Apple paying Comcast for faster delivery. Third, these improvements do *not* apply to all ISPs exactly the same way.

There are two separate things going on here. First issue: Apple creating their own CDN. Nothing really controversial in itself. Second issue: Apple paying Comcast for direct interconnections to Comcast's network. This is the controversial part.

I went back and read the article again to be sure, but I still think you’re reading this wrong. Apple isn’t paying for faster service because Comcast is artificially reducing the bandwidth available to Apple’s consumers, they’re paying Comcast so that they can bypass a 3rd party CDN. This is money they’d have to pay to any ISP if they wanted to get around using a CDN. As I understand it, anyways.

Again, that’s just how I’m reading a short and admitedly not very specific article. This is second hand information and it isn’t terribly clear. But what I’m seeing here has nothing to do with net neutrality (which is a real problem we need to address. I’m not arguing against that, I’m just saying it doesn’t apply here).

----------

Violation of Net Neutrality:
Apple has 1TB direct pipe to Comcast. You connect to download your update. you receive 100kb/s and a popup that says "if you want to take advantage of our full 1TB bandwith, please pay!"

What this is:
Apple pays for a direct hardware connection from their servers to comcasts backbone. That 1TB connection is always on, and available to all users where the only real limitation on speed is the users internet Tier or some other link that might not have the technical capabilities of handling it'

This is a much clearer explanation than the one I was given. Thank you sir.

 

[firewood]

Before "fast" connections there were just "normal" connections.

No such thing. Each building paid a certain amount for a number and choice (if available) of T-1, DS-2, OC-3, ... OC-192, etc. lines from a carrier (or two) into the building. Then that would get split out into paid dedicated bandwidth for each connection from the building's routers to each of the ISPs or rented racks or servers located in the building. Big ISPs could afford to pay more than small ISPs. I was on a small ISP a couple decades ago. It was a lot slower then my employer's (big corp) fast pipe(s).

 

[iNosey]

This is really good. Looking forward to it

 

[DCIFRTHS]

I think this is conflating different issues...
As you say, NN doesn't have anything to do with server farms or network upgrades. However, agreements such as these undermine NN by creating separate broadband highways for only those that can afford it, which potentially squeezes out smaller competitors or discourages upstarts. Some might see that as simple capitalism, but without regulation, the *long term* affects have a tendency to be anti-consumer and create an anti-competitive marketplace.

To be clear, Apple hasn't done anything "wrong" here (i.e. their deal with Comcast), and they are legally taking advantage of what's available to them to stay competitive. So, good for them!

However, without NN regulation, the overall effect of these deals (whether Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) with the ISPs (which are essentially monopolies) has some potentially dire ramifications in the long run to a fair, competitive and innovative marketplace.

I'll correct you then because you've got it all backwards.

First, this isn't a "rumor". Second, this *is* about Apple paying Comcast for faster delivery. Third, these improvements do *not* apply to all ISPs exactly the same way.

There are two separate things going on here. First issue: Apple creating their own CDN. Nothing really controversial in itself. Second issue: Apple paying Comcast for direct interconnections to Comcast's network. This is the controversial part.

Two excellent posts. I totally agree with what you are saying.

this is not controversial at all and is standard practice for All of the internet.

You pay your ISP for speed. your speed is determined by how much you are willign to pay. its tiered pricing and has always existed.

This is not the subject of net neutrality.

Apple is only paying for a direct pipe into Comcasts backbone. Anyone can do this. its purely a money and infrastructure thing.

Net Neutrality deals with the ISp's purposely throttling back their content unless they pay extra, despite having the technology and infrastructure to deliver.

in simple example terms:

Violation of Net Neutrality:
Apple has 1TB direct pipe to Comcast. You connect to download your update. you receive 100kb/s and a popup that says "if you want to take advantage of our full 1TB bandwith, please pay!"

What this is:
Apple pays for a direct hardware connection from their servers to comcasts backbone. That 1TB connection is always on, and available to all users where the only real limitation on speed is the users internet Tier or some other link that might not have the technical capabilities of handling it'

Emphasis added to your post by me.

I feel it would be naive to think that Apple is not paying Comcast (or any other top tier ISP) to process all the extra bits Apple is now delivering directly to them.

Do you really see Comcast saying "Okay. Thanks for dropping off all these bits to us! No worries, we will be happy to pay for the servers to distribute it without delay."

 

[KdParker]

I suspect, Apple has other things in mind than just your typical updates.

Apple TV, Rdio (Beats), personal video SMS, even photos are what Apple is hoping to develop relationships with ISPs.

Net neutrality is coming to an end, fast.

With respect to the economy in general, I see a dichotomy emerging here. If you are in the Apple ecosystem, you will be well serve but you'll have to pay for it, which means you have money and do not mind.

If you are not in the Apple ecosystem, good luck navigating the maze of sub-optimal options out there.

It is the have and have nots.

Isn't that the case already.

In the US you paid more for cable internet access the DSL because of the higher speeds. Now Google is setting up faster connections (limit towns for now) but when offered to the public...the more bandwidth you want the higher the cost.

Net neutrality never existed, there was always segment of the population that was left out of the internet revolution due to access.

This is just the next phase.

 

[LordVic]

Two excellent posts. I totally agree with what you are saying.



Emphasis added to your post by me.

I feel it would be naive to think that Apple is not paying Comcast (or any other top tier ISP) to process all the extra bits Apple is now delivering directly to them.

Do you really see Comcast saying "Okay. Thanks for dropping off all these bits to us! No worries, we will be happy to pay for the servers to distribute it without delay."

No, the infrastructure has to be in place to handle it. That means for comcast to be able to technically handle the extra load, they'd need to update their systems as well.

This is nothing new, and is directly related to how networking and infrastructure works. Someone has to pay for the new copper (or whatever type of lines) and servers, and routers, switches and people.

But this istill isn't a violation of Net neutrality.

 

[Michael Scrip]

No such thing. Each building paid a certain amount for a number and choice (if available) of T-1, DS-2, OC-3, ... OC-192, etc. lines from a carrier (or two) into the building. Then that would get split out into paid dedicated bandwidth for each connection from the building's routers to each of the ISPs or rented racks or servers located in the building. Big ISPs could afford to pay more than small ISPs. I was on a small ISP a couple decades ago. It was a lot slower then my employer's (big corp) fast pipe(s).

Right... but I was talking about a big content provider paying for theoretical "fastlanes" that a small content provider can't afford.

The example I've heard is that a big company like Netflix can pay extra to get "special access" to its customers.

A small company like twit.tv cannot afford to do that.

So my question is... how exactly is TWiT affected by this? Or any small company?

The post I replied to said this would inhibit innovation and create an anti-competitive landscape... by squeezing out smaller competitors and discouraging upstarts.

TWiT was serving content for years before the concept of Internet "fastlanes" was a thing. And they're still delivering content today. I can watch TWiT right now even though they don't pay for "special access" to me.

They're still serving me content over the "normal" lane... not the "fastlane"... which is what I was alluding to earlier.

So again... how are Internet "fastlanes" harming innovation?

If smaller companies were being BLOCKED.... then I'd say that was a problem. But that's not happening.

 

[entropys]

violation of net neutrality
Apple has 1TB direct pipe to Comcast. You connect to download your update. you receive 100kb/s and a popup that says "if you want to take advantage of our full 1TB bandwith, please pay!"

What this is:
Apple pays for a direct hardware connection from their servers to comcasts backbone. That 1TB connection is always on, and available to all users where the only real limitation on speed is the users internet Tier or some other link that might not have the technical capabilities of handling it'

While you are entirely correct, those getting their panties twisted don't like what Apple is doing either. In their world, everyone should get that fabulous connection into the intertubes for free. If big Apple has it, their mungbean collective should too. That their collective could access any number of commercial CDNs to improve their delivery speed of content is not relevant, as they don't want to pay it.
The money it actually costs to build that infrastructure just comes from Other People.

 

[firewood]

The money it actually costs to build that infrastructure just comes from Other People.

...or the tooth fairy waving a magic wand. No one has to actually build optical fiber equipment, and dig up streets, lay multi-thousand kilometer long deep ocean cables, & etc.

----------

They're still serving me content over the "normal" lane... not the "fastlane"...

If they've been around for several years, the building(s) or rack(s) housing their servers has likely upgraded to a "faster-lane" at least once already. There is no "normal" lane. Each content provider has to pay to connect to some amount of bandwidth. Been that way for decades.

 

[kd5jos]

Bye bye net neutrality.

Either you don't understand what net neutrality is, or you prefer slow speeds. Can I ask which it is. There really isn't a third option in your statement.

 

[ixxx69]

Ok, but then explain to me why Akamai is allowed to be in this business and Apple is not...

I made absolutely no such inference. I was extremely clear that I don't think Apple did anything wrong.

Can someone give me a real-world example of the effects of this?

This is part of what makes all this so complicated, because much of "problems" are theoretical at this point (and it may be too late to fix when they're no longer theoretical) and the way the internet works is so technical... we can't know what small startup will never materialize because of lack of NN. But theoretically, the "next" youtube might have trouble getting off the ground because they can't afford to pay all these ISPs for the same quality of service as google can. But even from huge established companies like Netflix... they're able to make a deal with Comcast, but let's say Verizon wants twice as much as Netflix is paying Comcast... Netflix either has to pay up or sit out... and when Verizon customers get upset, they generally don't have a practical choice of ISP, so they lose out and generally will blame Netflix that their video streaming sucks.

Net Neutrality deals with the ISp's purposely throttling back their content unless they pay extra, despite having the technology and infrastructure to deliver.

in simple example terms:

Violation of Net Neutrality:
Apple has 1TB direct pipe to Comcast. You connect to download your update. you receive 100kb/s and a popup that says "if you want to take advantage of our full 1TB bandwith, please pay!"

What this is:
Apple pays for a direct hardware connection from their servers to comcasts backbone. That 1TB connection is always on, and available to all users where the only real limitation on speed is the users internet Tier or some other link that might not have the technical capabilities of handling it'

On that first point, "throttling" can be a refusal on the ISPs part to adequately provide the necessary networking to allow for required content delivery. That's essentially what Netflix was accusing the ISPs of doing.

On that second point, that's not a good example. Your ISP can charge you want it wants for bandwidth, and I wouldn't necessarily agree that is a violation of NN (there might be other consumer rights issues related to that, but not NN). The dangers here are that Apple is essentially held hostage to the whims of each ISP they have to make a deal with in order to guarantee quality of service. See my example above.

...or the tooth fairy waving a magic wand. No one has to actually build optical fiber equipment, and dig up streets, lay multi-thousand kilometer long deep ocean cables, & etc.

No one is saying ISPs, etc. shouldn't get paid. It's *how* they get paid. They're supposed to build all that stuff because end users pay for internet connections (whether is a home user or Apple). The issue is whether companies like Apple should need to make special deals with *every* ISP in order to ensure quality of service for their content.

 

[randyj]

Finally something Samsung won't copy!!

 

[Michael Scrip]

If they've been around for several years, the building(s) or rack(s) housing their servers has likely upgraded to a "faster-lane" at least once already. There is no "normal" lane. Each content provider has to pay to connect to some amount of bandwidth. Been that way for decades.

Oh yeah... TWiT has a huge bandwidth bill. They live-stream using a variety of services... and their downloads are handled through CacheFly.

That wasn't my question though.

What's all this talk about other companies paying extra for "special access" to customers? <--- that's my question

And how is a company affected if they don't pay for this "special access?" <--- followup question

The comment I initially replied to used phrases like:

"creating separate broadband highways for only those that can afford it"
"potentially squeezes out smaller competitors or discourages upstarts"
"anti-consumer"
"anti-competitive"
"dire ramifications in the long run to a fair, competitive and innovative marketplace"

But no one can tell me HOW any of this will actually affect smaller companies who can't afford this "special access" or what this "special access" even means.

I only used the term "fast lane" because that's what it's called in the media. Do a Google search for "internet fast lanes" and see what I mean.

 

[Michael Scrip]

This is part of what makes all this so complicated, because much of "problems" are theoretical at this point (and it may be too late to fix when they're no longer theoretical) and the way the internet works is so technical... we can't know what small startup will never materialize because of lack of NN. But theoretically, the "next" youtube might have trouble getting off the ground because they can't afford to pay all these ISPs for the same quality of service as google can. But even from huge established companies like Netflix... they're able to make a deal with Comcast, but let's say Verizon wants twice as much as Netflix is paying Comcast... Netflix either has to pay up or sit out... and when Verizon customers get upset, they generally don't have a practical choice of ISP, so they lose out and generally will blame Netflix that their video streaming sucks.

Thanks for clearing that up!

So it's a "quality of service" kinda thing... and it might only affect video streaming startups.

There are literally thousands of small websites (think news websites) that serve their own content... but I don't think any of them pay for "special access" like Netflix or Youtube does.

The "next YouTube" might not be able to afford the same quality as Google... but what kind of quality will they get?

What about a non-video startup? Let's say you make a new iOS app... and you have a website for your company. People will still be able to visit your website, right? Surely a simple website won't need "special access" to customers.

I was just confused as to how innovation could be harmed by all of this.

 

[firewood]

Oh yeah... TWiT has a huge bandwidth bill....

But no one can tell me HOW any of this will actually affect smaller companies who can't afford this "special access" or what this "special access" even means.

In part, the same way as it has for the past decade. There is not infinite bandwidth out of any content provider's building, nor into any ISPs infrastructure. Bandwidth has always cost $$$. Smaller companies that can't afford what TWiT is paying will face slower access from their customers than TWiT. And the opposite for bigger companies that can pay more.

If someone pays Comcast a few $100M to buy some new multi-TB optical ingress infrastructure, I'm sure that they will let that company use it.

 

[alent1234]

Thanks for clearing that up!

So it's a "quality of service" kinda thing... and it might only affect video streaming startups.

There are literally thousands of small websites (think news websites) that serve their own content... but I don't think any of them pay for "special access" like Netflix or Youtube does.

The "next YouTube" might not be able to afford the same quality as Google... but what kind of quality will they get?

What about a non-video startup? Let's say you make a new iOS app... and you have a website for your company. People will still be able to visit your website, right? Surely a simple website won't need "special access" to customers.

I was just confused as to how innovation could be harmed by all of this.

Small sites pay amazon, Microsoft or google compute engine

 

[firewood]

The issue is whether companies like Apple should need to make special deals with *every* ISP in order to ensure quality of service for their content.

Likely yes. When Walmart wants to open a new super-store, they very often make a special deal with the city or county to widen streets, put up new overpasses and traffic lights, and etc. Same thing with any entity that adds massive traffic, network or auto. Public or private.

Even the little ma-and-pa market might be required to pay for new wheelchair ramps and etc.

 

[alent1234]

I made absolutely no such inference. I was extremely clear that I don't think Apple did anything wrong.


This is part of what makes all this so complicated, because much of "problems" are theoretical at this point (and it may be too late to fix when they're no longer theoretical) and the way the internet works is so technical... we can't know what small startup will never materialize because of lack of NN. But theoretically, the "next" youtube might have trouble getting off the ground because they can't afford to pay all these ISPs for the same quality of service as google can. But even from huge established companies like Netflix... they're able to make a deal with Comcast, but let's say Verizon wants twice as much as Netflix is paying Comcast... Netflix either has to pay up or sit out... and when Verizon customers get upset, they generally don't have a practical choice of ISP, so they lose out and generally will blame Netflix that their video streaming sucks.


On that first point, "throttling" can be a refusal on the ISPs part to adequately provide the necessary networking to allow for required content delivery. That's essentially what Netflix was accusing the ISPs of doing.

On that second point, that's not a good example. Your ISP can charge you want it wants for bandwidth, and I wouldn't necessarily agree that is a violation of NN (there might be other consumer rights issues related to that, but not NN). The dangers here are that Apple is essentially held hostage to the whims of each ISP they have to make a deal with in order to guarantee quality of service. See my example above.


No one is saying ISPs, etc. shouldn't get paid. It's *how* they get paid. They're supposed to build all that stuff because end users pay for internet connections (whether is a home user or Apple). The issue is whether companies like Apple should need to make special deals with *every* ISP in order to ensure quality of service for their content.

You have no idea what you are talking about

Comcast and verizon gave netflix better rates than they were paying level 3 and cogent

 

[Michael Scrip]

In part, the same way as it has for the past decade. There is not infinite bandwidth out of any content provider's building, nor into any ISPs infrastructure. Bandwidth has always cost $$$. Smaller companies that can't afford what TWiT is paying will face slower access from their customers than TWiT. And the opposite for bigger companies that can pay more.

If someone pays Comcast a few $100M to buy some new multi-TB optical ingress infrastructure, I'm sure that they will let that company use it.

Yeah... everyone pays for bandwidth.

I was just wondering how this "slower access" will affect those who don't pay extra for the "internet fast lane"

 

[alent1234]

Yeah... everyone pays for bandwidth.

I was just wondering how this "slower access" will affect those who don't pay extra for the "internet fast lane"

no such thing as a fast lane

 

[cocky jeremy]

Apple, please follow Google and make your own ISP. Better yet, work together with Google and make one ISP between the two of you and make it nation wide. Screw Verizon, Comcast, etc.

 

[SonicSoundVW]

Meanwhile, downloads won't change for most users due to pathetically slow ISP speed caps.

Don't forget the data caps that are also imposed on a lot of people. Dosn't matter if you can download it faster if you have to wait till next month for your data usage to reset.

 

[Michael Scrip]

no such thing as a fast lane

Someone thinks there is...

 

[firewood]

I was just wondering how this "slower access" will affect those who don't pay extra for the "internet fast lane"

Possibly no absolute affect at all... same as if I didn't pay for new high-speed cable or DSL. My old ISP still has access thru some 28.8k baud compatible modems. They probably would work the same as they did back when I first used them to connect (if I hadn't thrown my 28.8k baud modem in the e-waste bin).

Not slower at all.

Just not useful because everybody now expects a "fast lane" (cable or DSL broadband)...

...except for the reported over 2 million customers still using AOL dial-up!

----------

no such thing as a fast lane

There's always been an internet fast lane. Just not called that until the politicians and activists needed a way to get more press and PR.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Possibly no absolute affect at all... same as if I didn't pay for new high-speed cable or DSL. My old ISP still has access thru some 28.8k baud compatible modems. They probably would work the same as they did back when I first used them to connect (if I hadn't thrown my 28.8k baud modem in the e-waste bin).

Not slower at all.

Just not useful because everybody now expects a "fast lane" (cable or DSL broadband)...

...except for the reported over 2 million customers still using AOL dial-up!

Ok... but I still think we're talking about two different things.

The "fast lane" I'm talking about is when a big content provider pays for "special access" to their customers.

For instance.... Netflix paying Comcast to guarantee better connections.

I'm not talking about broadband vs dial-up