Velocix Gear Helps ISPs Launch Their Own CDN Services

It seems that Velocix is moving in a direction that could steal big deals from its competitors by taking away the uncertainty of ISP restrictions from CDN delivery.

It's probably not going to be of any benefit to the smaller content owner but they can always go to Amazon for cheap, small scale delivery. This is going to make Velocix very attractive to the large content owners who typically don't look any further than Akamai, particulally in the US.

It seems to me, and I may be wrong (it has been known), that net neutrality issues wont apply here because ISPs will only deliver premium content over their CDN network. This effects net neutrality no more than asking users to pay to watch live sporting events.

I like to keep an eye on CDN news (after a brief spell at another CDN) and at the moment Velocix is the only company that appears to be producing innovative solutions (P2P delivery, free CDN and now metro) for content owners.

"It seems to me, and I may be wrong (it has been known), that net neutrality issues wont apply here because ISPs will only deliver premium content over their CDN network. This effects net neutrality no more than asking users to pay to watch live sporting events."

Perhaps, except that Verizon won't be asking subscribers to pay more for better quality -- it'll be asking the content owners to pony up for the privilege. If publisher A pays the ISP for a better connection to the broadband subscriber and publisher B doesn't pay, that's not exactly a 'neutral Internet' if the latter has a less favorable connection, is it?

"If publisher A pays the ISP for a better connection to the broadband subscriber and publisher B doesn't pay, that's not exactly a 'neutral Internet' if the latter has a less favorable connection, is it?"

At the moment publisher A can pay for a better connection by employing a CDN for delivery and not breach net neutrality rules, why should this be any different? As long as the ISP delivers it's CDN content without preference and it's Broadband traffic without preference then it's simply an extension of the current model.

"As long as the ISP delivers it's CDN content without preference"

Precisely - in this scenario, the content provider who pays the "ransom" gets their content cached locally, providing better (therefore biased) response to the user. True, there is some benefit to the content provider in that they only have to transmit the files once (or less frequently), but the ISP also benefits just as well. Localized proxy cache servers are nothing new - implementing mechanisms that allow ISP's to charge content providers for that service is (new), and entails an additional cost that wasn't there before, and probably the main objection being addressed in the call for net neutrality.

A bum rap by any other name is still a bum rap. If they want to charge for premium service, they should charge the end user, not the content provider, and see how well that goes. I suspect not very well.

Metered internet access as it concerns the content source would be a major slam against small low budget content providers unable or unwilling to pay this ransom. And you can rest assured, any such cost increases will inevitably be passed on to the the end user as more and more content switches to (increases in) paid subscriptions and higher PPV costs, and highly detrimental to all the content that is currently free. Almost every facet of communications technology is getting faster and less expensive, we don't need this, and its really not justified.

In the dial-up world, these "turbo" service upgrades are offered for free, or for a nominal charge to the end user of like $1 per month. And that's exactly what they are, caching sysems that bring the data closer to the end user, without a surcharge to the content provider.

At the same time, localized caching of data just makes sense for everyone concerned and it should be a standard practice. Just don't expect to turn it into a new revenue source, one that puts brings about additional costs. Your competitors that provide proper caching and "don't" impose such ransoms - they will eat your lunch. ;-)