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's Content Delivery Network Now Live, Making Faster OS X/iOS Downloads Possible
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, was about to post how I've always gotten silly fast downloads of Apple updates through Comcast.
Then I though - I always get pretty darned good download speeds through Comcast basically all the time. I also get
Then I realized I'm in a competitive area - ATT slings UVERSE at us at a ridiculous rate. I get, on average, 1-2 new and unique marketing pieces from them every week, and have since it launched here some years ago.
There's also a competing cable company here. If I wanted to, I could ditch Comcast cable modem and go get (admittedly crappy) cable modem service from that competitor.
Funny how competition gets you benefits...
Then I though - I always get pretty darned good download speeds through Comcast basically all the time. I also get
Then I realized I'm in a competitive area - ATT slings UVERSE at us at a ridiculous rate. I get, on average, 1-2 new and unique marketing pieces from them every week, and have since it launched here some years ago.
There's also a competing cable company here. If I wanted to, I could ditch Comcast cable modem and go get (admittedly crappy) cable modem service from that competitor.
Funny how competition gets you benefits...
It's exactly the same thing...
...on the other (virtual) side of the Comcast building(s).
I pay for the wire from one side of the Comcast or AT&T building to my house (or my share for the neighborhood block). I want a fatter pipe, I pay more (same with AT&T. They both have tiered service.)
Netflix or Apple pays for the fiber from their data centers (and any subsidiaries in the building) to the other side of the Comcast infrastructure or IXP. Netflix wants more "fatter" fibers (and the very expensive equipment to connect to it) into Comcast's building, Netflix pays more. Apple might also pay more for a direct fiber right-of-way, or even a building next door to Comcast's buildings (similar to what the financial market high-speed traders do) to get a shorter fiber and shave some milliseconds. Or Netflix might pay Amazon or a CDN to do that for them.
Or I could just skip paying Comcast and get an old 56k modem on eBay.
Our Apple TVs receive Netflix highest HD quality without a flicker day in day out. We have FiOS. I turned off the Verizon WiFi and simply use the Apple one built into a Time Capsule. I wonder why some do and some don't get good service. I often wonder if many just have crappy wifi routers.
Clearly you never worked in enterprise. People shift focus very often.
Besides, the increased campus could mean more software developers hired to fix or speed development. It's indirectly related but the end goal is stability, speed, and features.
That makes perfect sense. If Netflix needs to hog up too much of Comcast's pipes... Netflix should pay for that.
So why is there all this "it will destroy the little guy and harm innovation" talk?
Late 80s actually. Worked at Genuity setting up hubs for BBS connections to the Internet in 88 and 89.
Political PR. The "little guys" and activists are at the trough for a try at yet another government handout. Free infrastructure bandwidth that somebody else gets to pay for. That disappeared long ago with the growth of the public Internet way beyond the government funded Arpanet and NSFNet, et.al. You can't go back.
This was my point. As more traffic is delivered to an ISP, they should be updating their infrastructure to handle distributing it, in a timely fashion, to their customers.
IMO, it violates the spirit of net neutrality as it allows rich companies to deliver data faster because they will foot the bill to upgrade the ISP's hardware. The ISP should be footing this bill as they are charging their end users (you and I) for tiered speed deliveries.
I guess I view Apple, Netflix etc. as giving Comcast, Verizon etc. welfare (to upgrade their infrastructure) when they really don't need it...
If these companies can't hack being an ISP because their customers are demanding more data than they can deliver, then they are doing something wrong. The sad part is that they are still turning profits...
there is no way you can get HD quality netflix on FIOS. all the problems with FIOS have been documented.
i'm on time warner and my netflix plays fast but looks like slightly better SD. i've seen it on Cablevision and Comcast and it looks like blu ray quality
----------
CDN's sell to small companies as well, how do they violate NN?
----------
Someone thinks there is...
technically it's impossible to have fast lanes on the internet
----------
so what are these internet fast lanes and how do they work? because CDN's aren't it. CDN's are outsourced data hosting so dozens of companies don't have to build the same infrastructure around the country. kind of like how cell carriers outsource some towers to third party tower companies
Net Neutrality though never really was meant to deal with your ability to pay for your pipe. you can argue that there's a line somewhere that has to be drawn between normal business practices, and what people are afraid of with net neutralities.
The simple fact of the matter is, when it comes to internet infrastructure, you have always gotten "what you paid for". there has always been tiers of internet connectivity. There just isn't enough bandwith in the world to give unlimited, super fast, top tier internet to every single person and company in the world.
The corporate side of it works just like the home side. you pay for a certain bandwidth amount.
But you have to remember. Youtube didnt' start as a giant google company that used the pipe it has today. A smart company builds and plans their infrastructure and networking needs and pays for the adequate levels for their users. Only as they grow do they worry about upgrading their connections.
Why this practice isn't considered violation of net neutrality, as I mentioned before, because as long as an ISP provides the promised speed at their Tier, with no throttling because of the type of content, then it is normal everyday practice.
it is only when the isp's start llimiting that bandwith based on types of content or company by company basis and charging differently that it starts becoming an issue. As I mentioned before in my post, NN would be violated here if Apple built their CDN, and then the ISP's and backbones told them "now despite having 1TB pipe, you can only use 1MB/s untill you pay us more!"
----------
there has always been an "internet fast lane".
This is a buzzword that doesn't take into account the complex nature of the internet, and it's technology.
There has always been this perverbial fast lane because internet isn't free, ther is technology that needs to support it and operate it, and the technologies of delivery all cost different. It isn't also just cut and dry about "you pay more for faster" as different types of technologies also have different costs.
but it always came down to the simple math. You have money to pay for better technology, you get faster access to the system
Net Neutrality "fast lane" that is being thrown around these days, only reffers to the purposeful throtling of services based on content in order to extort additional money.
"oh hai!, you have a 100Mbps connection to your home, awesome, but to watch youtube over 100kbps, you have to pay $ above your internet bill".
Thats the fast lane NN refers to.
in the case of youtube it's google who wants to be paid to get the HD certification and have the videos come in HD and super fast
it's still not NN, but the same problem as 20 years ago as to what is the fastest way to move large files over the internet
Exactly what I was thinking. This is the start of the real Apple TV product (read: service). I suspect it will be or will morph into an ecosystem that will look more like the original walled gardens like CompuServe than the current products like Netflix.
Heh heh heh, "ibone." Heh heh heh.
This was my first thought
.This was my second.
ISPs are to blame here. They are holding their customers hostage and companies like Apple don't really have much choice because the ISP customers don't have any choices either. The government really needs to bust up these ISP monopolies, and create proper net neutrality regulations. I don't think common carrier is absolutely necessary to have better internet service for everyone, but the fact that I have exactly one tolerable-speed (I refuse to call it high-speed) internet service provider available to me at my residence is insane. It is no surprise to anyone that my ISP is having record profits while my bill keeps going up and my service is still hugely behind internet service in other countries. It's either I pay through the nose, or I get crappy DSL and still over-pay for it.
Sooner or later, the economic cost of having such terrible and abusive internet service providers is going to bite this country in the ass. What technology innovations are we losing out on, and what new industries aren't being created, because of these cable internet monopolies all over the place? Heck, just look at the video streaming market, and how it's been hampered by these vertically-integrated monopolies delivering the bits to our houses, which don't want to compete with other providers of bits. Since they own the delivery, and net neutrality has been smashed to pieces, companies like Netflix or Apple get screwed over along with their customers.
Also, ibone, lol.
It's worth noting ..
Netflix was far from the first content company to get direct peering w/ Comcast, etc. Steam, for example, has had that setup for some time now.
Netflix was far from the first content company to get direct peering w/ Comcast, etc. Steam, for example, has had that setup for some time now.
ISPs are charging content creators to give them faster access to their customers. That's what the "fast lane" is referring to.
Are you suggesting that ISPs are charging extra... and the content creators are agreeing to it... but they're NOT getting faster connections?
Holy smokes!
If you got the money to pay for it, you might get something along those lines.Why can't my internet let me download multiple terabits a second
"start"? There is no recent "start".
Well over a decade ago, when I went to find hosting for a few web pages, the ISP hosting rates differed depending on the bandwidth allocated to the web site. Tiers. More GB/mo. == more $$$/mo. Go over the limit and either pay more or your site gets shut down. It's been that way for nearly 20 years, when a company goes out to rent a web site, virtual instance, dedicated server, or floor space for a private rack, etc. and wants more bandwidth, they have to pay more.
So what's the new issue? It's just a generic tiered price increase, same as rents or real estate in some neighborhoods. People who can't afford that big apartment move to a smaller one. Web sites that can't afford the new prices for bigger pipes get smaller tubes. Same old.
Or you buy a big house for cash and stop paying rent. Same as Apple building their own CDN, and maybe dedicated fiber pipes as well.
----------
Well. I suppose it also means that the people who agree with these "daft" comments can't vote down your "saner" comments as well.
Last edited:
This isn't about net neutrality.
This is paying for a better network.
Net neutrality means that when they pay for better network, it won't affect your network.
Add, not reposition.
ISPs are charging content creators to give them faster access to their customers. That's what the "fast lane" is referring to.
Are you suggesting that ISPs are charging extra... and the content creators are agreeing to it... but they're NOT getting faster connections?
Holy smokes!
That's only because level 3 and cogent tried to send too much data over links that were there for equal data exchange
And nothing wrong with a last mile isp peering directly with a content provider and charging them for it. They are only taking business away from a competitor and keeping a lot of data off the internet backbone for other applications