"IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)

Thu Jan 22 02:04:58 UTC 2009

Surely the whole point of this is that the end users (the eyeballs)  
get the best experience they can as they're the ultimate consumer.  So  
working with everyone in the chain between the content owner and the  
eyeballs is important.

If you're a content owner then you want the experience to be good so  
that either you sell more ads or that your "brand" (whatever that may  
mean) is well thought of.

It's why content owners use CDNs - to ensure that it's delivered close  
to the end user.

Surely that means, logically to me anyway, that working with caching  
providers local to the eyeballs is the next logical point.   Certainly  
for the heavy bits that don't change (eg the video streams Adrian  
mentioned).

It's a mutual benefit thing - if your content sucks for a school (for  
example) to use then they're not going to use it.   That's not good  
for you as a content owner.

I realise that CDNs probably aren't that keen on people caching as it  
reduces their revenue, but a level of being rational about helping the  
whole chain deliver means probably more traffic overall.

MMC

On 22/01/2009, at 8:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> (Or the people having to deliver said content to said eyeballs, and
>> aren't being paid by the content deliverer on their behalf.)
>
> No, it does not.
>
> If I own something, it doesn't matter how "important" the people who  
> want to buy it are.
>
> But I guess that's not operational.
>
> -- 
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>