3 ms·

I think edge to edge connectivity being limited is mostly a software (routing protocol architecture) issue. For example, I live in an apartment and the ISP has

by barnacs 10y ago

I think edge to edge connectivity being limited is mostly a software (routing protocol architecture) issue. For example, I live in an apartment and the ISP has a router installed in the building. Coax cables are running to each apartment. I can see 15+ wifi networks from my home. Yet to fetch the exact same front page of a news site my neighbor is reading and has a cached copy of, I am routed through the backbone probably half way around the world, or to a CDN at the other end of my country at best. I don't think photons really care which way they travel but the shortest the path the faster they will get there and the less photons we send the cheaper it ends up being.

smallnamespace 10y ago
If the argument is that this saves on network hardware costs, then you'd think ISPs would have some incentive to invest in decentralization as well. But I'm not so sure about the thesis that it's just a software issue. It seems wasteful to sling electrons through a backbone and back when those bits are (physically) close by, but the cost here is not the distance those bits traveled, but the marginal cost of the physical hardware to deliver those bits to your doorstep. It's probably much cheaper, on a cost-per-bandwidth basis, to beef up the existing backbone, because significant economies of scale exist. OTOH, there's a significant fixed cost every time you try to widen edge links (it's very expensive to dig up and replace residential cables).
- barnacs 10y ago
  My ISP would certainly love if my whole local area (building/street/district/whatever) only fetched each unique piece of data once through their network and then distributed it locally via mesh networks. It's just that they can't make it happen by themselves. It needs to be supported by network protocols, which need support from content providers and content consumers as well, so it goes way beyond the reach of ISPs.

by barnacs 10y ago

smallnamespace 10y ago

If the argument is that this saves on network hardware costs, then you'd think ISPs would have some incentive to invest in decentralization as well. But I'm not so sure about the thesis that it's just a software issue. It seems wasteful to sling electrons through a backbone and back when those bits are (physically) close by, but the cost here is not the distance those bits traveled, but the marginal cost of the physical hardware to deliver those bits to your doorstep. It's probably much cheaper, on a cost-per-bandwidth basis, to beef up the existing backbone, because significant economies of scale exist. OTOH, there's a significant fixed cost every time you try to widen edge links (it's very expensive to dig up and replace residential cables).

barnacs 10y ago
My ISP would certainly love if my whole local area (building/street/district/whatever) only fetched each unique piece of data once through their network and then distributed it locally via mesh networks. It's just that they can't make it happen by themselves. It needs to be supported by network protocols, which need support from content providers and content consumers as well, so it goes way beyond the reach of ISPs.