But it has been experimenting with going direct. Google still needs ISPs and Telcos for the last mile, to deliver its various services and products, to the end user/consumer. Because of bartering through peering agreements, its only cost is in maintaining its own networks and backbones. It's difficult to believe, but your bandwidth bill to watch a YouTube video is more than Google's. These peering arrangements mean that Google's bandwidth bill for all that YouTube video is zero. This means that if they have the capacity, they will carry extra traffic for each other. Large Telcos and ISPs have peering arrangements with each other. If a company wants to compete with Google on a large scale, the costs of shuttling data packets around, whether they be Twitter packets or video packets, starts becoming very important at these large scales. Google’s infrastructure supports, well, only Google.īased on data from 110 ISPs collected in the summer of 2009, Google was responsible for as much as 10% of all Internet traffic. the “tier1s”), Google’s backbone does not deliver traffic on behalf of millions of subscribers nor thousands of regional networks and large enterprises. Only two other providers (both of whom carry significant volumes of Google transit) contribute more inter-domain traffic. If Google were an ISP, it would be the fastest growing and third largest global carrier. It's a rhetorical question because Arbor knows, it sells network control and monitoring hardware used by the largest ISPs and corporations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |