What difference to a CDN does owning a network make, no matter how big, if there continue to exist other networks to which content must also be distributed? If AT&T wants to place servers geographically close to its end users to distribute content, it is able to do so within its own network, but what about the user of an ISP other than AT&T who wishes to access the content that AT&T is distributing for, say, Yahoo?
Akamai has placed servers in many different networks and thus can be geographically AND network close to many end users who want to access Yahoo (in fact, they provide CDN services to Yahoo). But will the same networks who give Akamai access, allowing them to place servers within their data centers, allow a competing network to do so?
And, if google decided to get into CDN, would microsoft use it? would yahoo?
I think successful CDN must walk a tightrope, avoiding competing both with networks and their own customers.
Fiber: To Own or Not to Own [View article]
Akamai has placed servers in many different networks and thus can be geographically AND network close to many end users who want to access Yahoo (in fact, they provide CDN services to Yahoo). But will the same networks who give Akamai access, allowing them to place servers within their data centers, allow a competing network to do so?
And, if google decided to get into CDN, would microsoft use it? would yahoo?
I think successful CDN must walk a tightrope, avoiding competing both with networks and their own customers.