Tag Archives: generate-additional-bandwidth-capacity

How can the IP price gap be bridged? Hint: Beam me up Scotty

Posted on by
2

In my recent post I highlighted the differences in IP transit cost between locations. At the low end of transit costs are those locations where content is generated – major cities in which the major content server farms are located (typically in the US and in W. Europe major cities). Baseline prices of $0.5-1 per Mbps per month are the actual cost for placing it on the web. From there on, prices start to rise as the factor of transport costs go up and as the distance grows from the content source creation to the content consumption destination.

The further away the eyeballs are, the smaller the market is. The fewer the transport alternatives are, the longer the transport chain is – and the price of transport (obviously) increases.

Actually this model is no different than shipping any other goods. An orange in California costs $0.5 per kg in wholesale prices. In Vancouver, wholesalers charge $3 since they have to pay the $0.5 and an additional $2 transport fee, plus they want to make a profit. The supermarket owner in  the remote Whitehorse, Yukon, pays $12 for the oranges. What starts off at $3 in Vancouver, plus a cascade of transporters all the way to Whitehorse inevitably drives up the cost to sell those oranges. No one is ripping anyone else off in this process. But is there a way to provide affordable oranges to Whitehorse?

What if you could just teleport the oranges from California to Whitehorse? What if this teleportation could be achieved at fractions of the transport cost, and without involving any middlemen?

That’s exactly what we do at DiViNetworks; for bits, not oranges. We are able to teleport 30-50% of the content from its source to any destination worldwide, without loading any transport, and over any combination of transport networks. No data is lost along the way. That’s what we term VIRTUAL CAPACITY.

We share the price gap between our cost and the market IP price with our customers, guaranteeing that our customer ISPs pay HALF PRICE for the additional bandwidth.

Beam me up Scotty for a Free 14 Day DiViCloud Trial

Follow our LinkedIn for more information and statistics on International Bandwidth.

Euro 2012 – TV is still king (but watch the throne)

Posted on by
1

In the aftermath of Euro 2012 (and no, I’m not trying to replace Prandelli’s…) we learn one clear lesson – TV still dominates live video consumption.

The figure below (source: RIPE’s study) shows traffic in DE-CIX Munich Internet Exchange during the Germany-Greece match (22 June), compared to traffic same time in previous weeks.  As people get ready for the match – driving to friends, catching a nap, cooling the beers – Internet traffic declines. During the break they turn to check out what others say on the net.

Traffic seen at DECIX Munich during Germany v Greece match on 22 June 2012

Yesterday’s final was no different. Check out TOP-IX - Torino’s Exchange point – traffic stats.

Traffic seen at TOPIX Torino during Spain v. Italy match on 1 July 2012

So TV is still holding the throne for planned live events. Yet, we are keeping a close look on two trends:

Near-live traffic is booming. Missed the goal? Want to hear the Spanish Goooooal? Wish to poke your Italian friends? Go to the web.

Many events are not freely accessible on TV. Some events are premium, whereas others are just not broadcasted at all places. DiViNetworks serves many territories where people turn to the Internet to take part of such mainstream events. One example is presented in the graph below, demonstrating traffic growth during  a soccer match, as well as DiViLive‘s capability to flatten live traffic. The red marks the traffic actually passing on the link, and the green marks the virtual capacity generated by DiViLive (operating on live and near-live data). The traffic added due to the live event is shrunk to 10% of its original size.

Traffic during a soccer match flattened with DiViLive

Can Broadband Access Heal The World Economy? (To be discussed at G20)

Posted on by
1

In an open letter the ITU (International Telecom Union) urges G20 leaders, meeting in Mexico next week, to define targets making broadband affordable in all countries. ITU claims that Broadband (BB) is the remedy to recession and recommends top-priority targets:

  1. Universal BB policy – all countries should have BB plan
  2. Affordable BB – by regulation and/or market forces
  3. Connecting homes to BB – 40% of homes in developing countries
  4. Getting people online – 50% of population in developing countries should be Internet-literate

Providing affordable BB in developing countries is not a simple task. Take a look at the table below depicting two cases, serving a territory with population of 500,000 in developing vs. developed country.

Apparently, the transport cost, just to ensure reasonable ROI, is highly sensitive to physical distance and link utilization, rendering transport to developing countries extremely expensive. Carriers are therefore reluctant to invest in such links, making international data transport a monopoly exactly in those cases in need.

Regulation can only press vendors’ profit margins. Market forces are totally irrelevant in the developing world. Connecting developing countries to the world is therefore up to pseudo-philanthropy (a la World Bank), or to technological solutions changing the table above. And guess what – such are DiViCloud and DiViLive.

What’s Common to Helena, Montana and Cochabamba, Bolivia? (hint: data capacity cost)

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve often been asked if virtual capacity is relevant only for developing countries, or are data-optimization-services required in USA and Europe too. So we hit the road, met a bunch of ISPs in rural USA, participated in a WISPA event, and started working with distribution channels.

The traffic mix in rural USA is not significantly different from other places, and thus DiViNetworks’ guaranteed 30-50% capacity expansion can be reached. Calix did a great job, and analyzed 45 rural ISPs (here).

Traffic mix in rural USA ISPs

You can also learn that even a small ISP with 1,000 subscriber will need about 500Mbps Internet capacity (36.7GB per sub per month, assuming 6 hours effective per day).

In most cases only one carrier is laying fiber to rural towns (a.k.a. middle-mile), spending $25-60K per mile, and expecting reasonable ROI. Wholesale prices range between $20/Mbps/month and $200/Mbps/month. That’s without counting the backhaul often required. In that sense Helena, Montana is no different from Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Simple calculation shows that even a small ISP will have to spend $20K per month (500×40), making Internet connectivity a huge obstacle to profitability.

The thousands of rural ISPs, and tens of thousands of rural campuses, for which DiViCloud can virtually expand capacity by 30-50% make an interesting opportunity. With our US PoPs at major Internet junctions, this will soon become a reality.

Infographic – To be or not to be Unique?

Posted on by
Reply

We did a little bit of research to find out if our web surfing habits are really unique like we would all like to believe, or, are we all viewing the same content?

Click on the infographic (you may want to zoom in), and you’ll find out  that 50% of the data traffic has already passed the network – even in a short window of 6 hours. Isn’t that a waste of expensive bandwidth?

In Yair‘s post “we are all individuals,” it was explained that with as little as 150GB of storage at the network edges, most of this redundant data can be saved without any deterioration in service.