3 ms·
> With the rise of streaming, peering arrangements are more lopsided than ever and ISPs are actually having to pay for their own internet access. Don’t most IS
by mr_toad 8y ago
> With the rise of streaming, peering arrangements are more lopsided than ever and ISPs are actually having to pay for their own internet access.
Don’t most ISPs cache this sort of content closer to their customers? Netflix at least offers to install hardware that does this.
- scurvy 8y agoYouTube and Netflix cache boxes are important for smaller ISP's. Their cache performance can literally make or break the monthly P&L. That said, I haven't heard about other OTT services offering a caching appliance. And there are more and more OTT streaming services coming. It's great from a consumer perspective, but it's going to be challenging for smaller players.
- wbl 8y agoSolution is to get some datacenters on your network as well. I'm not sure why that didn't happen before.
- scurvy 8y agoHow would a rural WISP "get some datacenters" on its network? Sorry, I'm not grasping your previous comment.
- wbl 8y agoIf you have the problem that peering is getting very one-sided, the solution is to get the other side as well. So a rural ISP should try to expand into an area with cheap power and offer low-cost hosting and bandwidth to attract servers.
- scurvy 8y agoHard to do that when everyone runs everything in the cloud. That's a very tough market to crack into.
- tylerl 8y agoThis is downright silly. The bulk of bandwidth is associated with a select few destinations that aren't going to put their datacenters behind a consumer isp under any circumstances. But many do offer caching options that allow content to be sourced inside the ISP.
- xp3ll3d 8y agoMoving towards decentralised internet infrastructure such as https://ipfs.io https://ipfs.io could help with this. ISPs setting up IPFS caches for their customers could save a LOT of peering bandwidth.