Content Delivery Networks and Network Neutrality: Net Is Not Neutral

Much discussion about network neutrality seems to assume that the issue is bit or application "blocking," and from one perspective that is correct. The existing Federal Communications Commission rules about a users' right to use all lawful applications already prohibit blocking of legal applications on wired networks. The issue is whether those rules, and the other "Internet Freedoms" principles also should be extended to the wireless domain.

In another sense, popular perceptions are misguided or worse. There is a separate issue, that of whether it ever is permissible, for any legal reason, to shape traffic, either to maintain network performance, provide an enhanced service to a user, or create a new level of service.

Some will maintain there are other ways of maintaining end user experience aside from traffic shaping. That is arguably correct, but might cost so much that the entire consumer access pricing regime has to change in ways people will find objectionable.

Some argue that any traffic shaping of legal bits should be banned, because such practices have undesirable business impact. "No bits should have any priority," that line of reasoning suggests.

One might simply note that about 60 percent of video bits--almost universally served up by media companies--already enjoys such "unequal treatment." Indeed, that is the purpose of a content delivery network: to expedite the delivery of some bits, compared to others, so that a better end user experience is possible.

In fact, about $1.4 billion was spent in 2008 precisely to deliver such expedited bits. The U.S. market currently generates an estimated 55.8 percent of the global CDN traffic, though international traffic is now increasing at a faster rate than its domestic counterpart, according to Research and Markets.

And though video delivery historically has been the CDN staple, new growth areas include whole site delivery, dynamic content, "live" video, high-definition video, mobile and smartphone applications, other non-PC devices and adaptive bit rate streaming, Research and Markets notes.

Of the 22.5 billion professional video views served during 2009, Akamai delivered 31.9 percent, Limelight Networks 12 percent and Level 3 11.2 percent, says Research and Markets.. Additional CDNs active in the market include CD Networks, Velocix, Liquid Compass, Abacast, Mirror Image, Edgecast Networks, Highwinds, BitGravity, Cotendo and Internap, the firm notes.

The point is that preferential delivery of bits already is an established part of the way the Internet works. Private network users, especially businesses, also commonly set up traffic priority systems for their internal communications and content, as well.

The ability of a consumer end user to choose to use such services and applications is one of the implications of the network neutrality debate that often is lost. To reiterate, preferential treatment of bits already is happening on a wide scale, and for very good reasons: to preserve end user experience. Perhaps we ought not to be in such a rush to foreclose practices and capabilities of obvious value.

at&t Says It Will Provide CDN Services

Earlier this year Level 3 caused a stir when it said it would enter the content delivery network (CDN) market with a radical pricing model: essentially offering the quality of service features at no incremental cost to what customers expect to pay for simple IP transit. And if you think about it, that's precisely what a CDN does: provide QoS features on top of dumb pipe. All of which should have, and did, raise fears about the health of the CDN market.

After all, if a contestant says it will give customers for free, what they today pay for, that's disruptive. Most recently, at&t itself said it was getting into the CDN business as well. Which should have caused another shudder: remember Northpoint, Rhythms Netconnections and Covad? They were the three independent providers in the nascent Digital Subscriber Line broadband access market. Of course, when the incumbent telcos decided broadband access was a business they had to "own," they simply moved to do that.

So are Level 3 and at&t a threat to market-leader Akamai? Right now it's hard to say much, beyond the obvious fact that competition is increasing in the space. One issue could ultimately be the size of the market opportunity, the reason for that being that a smallish market will favor specialists, while a large market will favor the larger telcos.

And it is not necessarily simply because scale economies might kick in. It is more a matter that large telcos tend not to do well in market segments that are small. Small markets never get the attention they might deserve in a large organization. So unless the market gets fairly sizable, a large telco simply will not invest enough to keep pace with smaller specialists.

So how big is the market today? As it turns out, that's a guesstimate of sorts.

Some things are hard to count. Unified communications software is an example. People who track these things like concrete measures: ports, servers, licenses sold. So how do you track "presence" features that simply are embedded in the basic functionality of an IP PBX?

Other markets aren't quite that hard to track, but still are fuzzy because mutltiple revenue categories get lumped together in the reporting. Streaming media services, as distinct from application acceleration, provides an example of that sort.

Dan Rayburn,StreamingMedia.com EVP, provides a reasonable way of current approaching the U.S. market size, though. Working backwards from benchmarks, Rayburn suggests the market for CDN services (but not P2P apps) currently is less than $800 million.

Internap's 2007 revenue is about $24 million. Limelight Networks generated about $105 million for 2007 and about $95 million of that was earned in the U.S. market.

Akamai probably generates $400 million to $450 million of its $625 million total revenue comes from their CDN services. Rayburn further guesses that U.S. CDN revenues amount to $300 million.

Level 3 wasn't in the market for much of the year, but might have earned $2 million or so.

VeriSign might have earned about $8 million for the year in the U.S. market.

Mirror Image, CacheLogic, Panther Express, CacheFly and Advection.NET taken together will do about $20 million in the U.S. market.

EdgeCast, CDNetworks and BitGravity combined did about $5 million for the year. Again, these are new services that didn't have a full year of operation to measure.

PEER 1, NaviSite and Ignite Technologies together collectively generated about $8 million.

All other smaller regional service providers providing small and medium sized businesses outsourced video delivery services sold under $20 million in 2007.

Joost Chooses Level 3

Level 3 Communications has been selected by Joost to provide content delivery services for the new Internet television service. Under the terms of the agreement, Level 3 will provide Joost with network solutions including high speed Internet access and colocation services in North America and Europe. Level 3 has made a big commitment to providing CDN services and can claim, by means of its (former Vyvx)broadcast video services unit, to be supplying top U.S. cable and over-the-air broadcasters with a significant part of their overall backhaul and studio feed operations. The Joost deal will not make or break Level 3's CDN business or strategy. But it is a nice customer to have.