Genuine question - aren't those gaps essentially what make a video streaming service operate at scale though? It'd be like saying "ya this bus can get everyone from NYC to Philly at $10 but doesn't stop anywhere in between", or am I missing something about all of those gap filling components?
I've worked at 2 ISPs and we obviously didn't have this peering policy, because it's dumb and it breaks the Internet. We also didn't throttle video, because it's dumb and breaks the Internet.
This is the model for all networks, indeed, most businesses - they pay a big upfront and moderate recurring cost to make a fast network (or restaurant or widget factory) and then sell it in slices with a large freedom to choose a pricing model. Pay per terabyte is a pretty reasonable way to pass on the network's fixed cost to consumers, just like part of the cost of the restaurant meal covers the interior decorations, even though the decorations don't actually cost more the more people eat, until the restaurant gets so busy it needs to expand.
> For every terabit of bandwidth, you have to physically build out a terabit of network.
So the 'terabit of network' the content provider needs to build need only span a few hundred feet within a single building.
Not all networks are the same. Some have terabit backbones and gigabit edges, some have the reverse. We'd still call both of them, roughly, terabits of network, and you still have to build them. The one with the terabit core might actually be easier because you have less of the expensive really fast equipment.
The only point I wanted to make is that the 'terabit of network' doesn't have to be end to end, so it's not as scary as it may sound.
If you're wondering, if you can't get peering, you wind up like Twitch. In South Korea. South Korean telecom law explicitly shifts the capital expenditure costs of ISPs over to other online services, which is sort of like the fucked-up opposite of Net Neutrality regulation. So Twitch was being bled dry to pay for the chaebols' network expansion. Hell, even after Twitch left, South Korea fined them for leaving!
...is there some reason for Twitch to pay such a fine? Were any grounds stated for it?
> According to Yonhap, the KCC made the decision that Twitch terminating the ability for users in South Korea to access VODs wasn’t necessary to keep the service alive. When asked to justify their claims, Twitch declined due to contractual obligations related to keeping user and site data private.
> Additionally, Twitch would have to present evidence that their decision to gradually take features away from South Korean users & leave the country was necessary. This means that Twitch isn’t likely to return service to South Korea any time soon.
> There’s also a good chance Twitch will be forced to provide refunds for those who have been affected by the service being discontinued, with the KCC warning Twitch that they need to prepare “user protection measures” as they cease service in the country.
https://www.dexerto.com/twitch/south-korea-fines-twitch-over...
Most bandwidth is via settlement-free peering with thousands of ISPs around the world. At least that's how we did it at Twitch, and how we did it when I worked at a large CDN before that. There are still costs for backhaul, interconnect, colocation space, dark fiber, network hardware, and transit to fill the gaps. But this talk about how "Google can magically do it 5x cheaper" is nonsense.