Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by stonemetal on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @01:22PM (#7773803)

content delivery networks (Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, etc) , on the other hand, are constantly at risk of being replaced.

L3 is a CDN, Hulu is not. Hulu hires a CDN to get their data out there. CDNs are basically ISPs that provide high bandwidth with low latency by providing a distributed cache. Netflix has gotten in to the CDN business because at their scale none of the CDNs have been able to keep up with demand, or were not willing to pay for peering with last mile ISPs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by zimbatm on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:14PM (#7774183)

The ones who have the eyeballs are the service sites like Netflix, Hulu and Youtube. If they wanted they could influence public opinion quite easily by showing a message educating the user why their service is slow. "Your ISP has decided to keep 60% of the money you gave to them instead of upgrading their infrastructure. Now they want us to pay their infrastructure upgrade. We wish that our service was faster but don't want to get bullied into it. Please help us by contacting your ISP's customer support."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by mhandley on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @01:27PM (#7773851)

Monopolies are not so difficult to break. You just need to convince the politicians that doing so will get them reelected. And to do that you need to get the public really annoyed. Now how could you possibly do that I wonder <grin>

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by hga on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @01:46PM (#7773989)

More accurately, you convince them not breaking or adequately regulating the monopoly will force them to spend more time with their families after the next election. In the experience of gun owners, this works rather well after you've actually done enough times, e.g. every bi-annual national election from 1994-2000.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by dfc on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @01:38PM (#7773925)

  > This is asymetrical warfare.

When I got to that sentence I thought "Really, a war comparison?". I couldn't figure out where you were going to go with the comparison but I thought I would play along. After reading your comment a couple of times I still can't figure out what the connection is to asymmetric warfare. Who are the belligerents and the casus belli? How is this different from traditional "telecom warfare"?

This is one of the more bizarre reading experiences on HN:

I don't think that is the solution. This is asymetrical warfare...The solution to this will be worked out by the free market slowly but surely.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by freehunter on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @02:31PM (#7774285)

Really? It's an off-the-cuff remark to describe a fight that's slowly playing out. It's a pretty common phrase.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by dfc on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @03:01PM (#7774490)

Yes, really. I have never seen the free market be offered as "the solution" to a metaphoric asymmetric conflict. It seems like there is an inherent existential crisis that has prevented people (up until now) from suggesting the free market as a solution to asymmetric warfare. Is it really a free market when such large asymmetries exist between market participants?

That being said I find the suggestion that the colloquial definition of "asymmetric warfare" is "a fight that's slowly playing out" to be even stranger. Do you think that is the definition of "asymmetric warfare"? I must be reading different works than you because I cannot remember seeing "asymmetric warfare" used--and most certainly not commonly used--as a placeholder for a fight that is slowly playing out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by freehunter on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @04:49PM (#7775091)

First you were arguing that this should not be called warfare. Now it seems you're arguing something completely different. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by dfc on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @05:14PM (#7775231)

I never argued that this should not be called warfare. I said that I did not think that this was a good example of asymmetric warfare. To which you responded that "asymmetric warfare" was commonly used to describe a "fight that is slowly playing out." This was also confusing to me. I will restate my queries in order to clear up any confusion:

  1. How is the CDN/ISP conflict an example of "asymmetric warfare"?
  2. Do you think the definition of "asymmetric warfare" is "a fight
     that is slowly playing out"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by Pwntastic on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @01:04PM (#7773696)

Perhaps, but something has to give. Maybe directly pissing off 4 million customers is what's needed to get these monopolies broken?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by danielweber on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @01:31PM (#7773892)

Or people might wonder what gives these CDNs the right to declare warfare against their ISP and demand regulation of the CDNs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Level3 is without peer, now what to do? by aroch on Tuesday May 20, 2014 @01:05PM (#7773706)

> The solution to this will be worked out by the free market slowly but surely. The CDNs will eventually wise up - like Google - and get into the ISP business.

CDN are in the ISP business.

[ Parent | on HN ]