Google/Youtube problems

Mon Nov 19 21:51:59 UTC 2012

I stand corrected. That's what I get for going off memory.

Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106

----------------------------------------
 From: "Scott Whyte" <swhyte at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 4:48 PM
To: nick at flhsi.com
Subject: Re: Google/Youtube problems

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Nick Olsen <nick at flhsi.com> wrote:
> I think this would be true if they offered some form of paid peering.
>
> Google want's a good fast route to your customers, And your customers 
want
> a good fast route to Google.
>
> IF Google ran its transit at or near congestion. This could degrade your
> customers performance. After so long, You'd contact Google and attempt 
to
> troubleshoot. And they would say if you want good peering with them, You
> should pay them to peer. Where you could control just how much traffic 
was
> on your port and expand it if needed. Pretty sure this was Comcast and
> level3/Netflix did. But Comcast had the winning leverage (more eyeballs) 
in
> the discussion.
>
> But, I don't think Google does this. My knowledge on AS15169 is limited.
> But I recall them having a very strict peering policy.

Strict?  Really?
https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html

>
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106
>
> ----------------------------------------
>  From: "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:21 PM
> To: "joel jaeggli" <joelja at bogus.com>
> Subject: Re: Google/Youtube problems
>
> WIth my limited understanding of such topics I've long been confused by
> something I read a couple of years back - in an Arbor report perhaps - 
to
> the effect that by being the originator of so much traffic, and as they
> built out their own network, Google were making money on transit.
>
> Can anyone elaborate or refute?
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, joel jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/12 5:59 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>>
>>> What I'm trying to say, I can't see youtube generating anywhere nearly
>>> enough revenue who shift 10% (or more) of Internet. And to explain 
this
>>> conundrum to myself, I've speculated accounting magic (which I'd frown
>>> upon) and leveraging market position to get free capacity (which is 
ok,
> I'd
>>> do the same, had I the leverage)
>>>
>> Or there's a simpler explanation. Which is that it makes money either
>> directly or as part of a salubrious interaction with other google
>> properties.
>>
>> They had about 2.5Billion left over for their trouble in the quarter
>> ending 9/30 which isn't too shabby on a gross of 14 billion.
>>
>>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>