Broadband Bundle Profitability

Covers market sizing forecasts, best practice case studies and the insights to guide profitable mobile broadband growth.

December 30, 2010 22:12 suerudd

Skype today launched Video for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPads. This new version of the Skype service application software lets users make and receive video calls from iPhones, iPod touch and iPads, with instant messaging for other Skype users, over both Wi-Fi and AT&T's 3G network.

Was it a test for this iPhone video application that brought down Skype's Video Network Last week? The story going around last week was that a new release for Apple software - possibly the Skype iPhone Video application announced today - had a problem and triggered the Skype server failure when installed first on one and then several Skype 'supernodes'.

But don't blame the Apple software application.

Skype's supernodes act as both offline message (IM/SMS) relays and as Skype's Chief Information Officer noted yesterday "a directory, supporting other Skype clients, helping to establish connections between them and creating local clusters typically of several hundred peer nodes per each supernode."

The initial crashes brought down 25% to 30% of the Skype supernode servers - just before the normal daily peak. This in turn led to traffic overload that created extensive delays in the support servers responsible for offline instant messaging. This resulted in long response delays to some to Skype Windows clients and 20% of these had an old software bug that then caused them to crash.

The official Skype story was released yesterday by Lars Rabbe, Skype's Chief Information Officer, who describes the "snowball" effect that blocked most Skype users for 24 hours on 22nd.- 23rd. December 2010.

"50% of all Skype users globally were running (an older) 5.0.0.152 version of Skype for Windows, and the supernode crashes caused approximately 40% of those clients to fail. These ... included 25–30% of the publicly available 'supernodes', (that) also failed as a result of this problem."

"The failure of 25–30% of supernodes in the P2P network resulted in .. massively increased... load as (supernodes) reconnected to the peer-to-peer cloud... just before our usual daily peak-hour (1000 PST/1800 GMT)". As users tried to reconnect to the system, they generated "traffic to the supernodes that was about 100 times what would normally be expected at that time of day" and overwhelmed the remaining supernodes bringing the whole system to a standstill.

It is interesting that some sources focus blame on Microsoft, not just Skype's network, servers and software, but maybe the problem is more profound.

P2P Server Architecture.

Serious questions need to be asked about a network service architecture that allows:

  • Application software to crash what should be 'carrier class' servers performing network functions
  • P2P software that causes both network and user device based clients to crash as a result of network overload problems
  • Network server problems that spread automatically across a large number of supernodes

Network servers need to be especially resilient and intelligent in how they 'fail-over' in a distributed networking environment; but a robust Service Architecture is always a pre-requisite.

Let other P2P and 'Cloud' service providers beware.

On a positive note Skype brought in massive extra capacity to stabilize the network and was also able to restore Group Video Calling functionality in time for Christmas.

Software Release Deployment

Lars Rabbe also committed to review Skype's "testing processes to determine better ways of detecting and avoiding bugs which could affect the system.". Hopefully this promise includes:

  • 'Old fashioned' regression testing of all old versions of client software
  • Large scale network testing that does not impact live users - especially at peak traffic times!

These are rules that traditional service providers have followed for decades. Perhaps a little more respect for the "old fashioned" network operators and their software release processes is warranted.


August 11, 2010 16:08 suerudd

 

Doing the FCC’s job? On Monday August 9th. Verizon and Google issued a joint ‘suggested policy framework for lawmakers’ which reads as if it had come from the FCC, leading to an appropriate response from FCC commissioner Michael J. Copps that it is “time to reassert (FCC’s) authority”.

The framework endorses all the good ‘motherhood’ concepts - openness for legal content, nondiscrimination that does not block or degrade the Internet, and transparency for both wireline and wireless. And it addresses some of the traffic and network management concerns raised in my blog of May 27th . But the sting is in the tail. The fifth and sixth points posted in the expository blog carve out two major markets.

The ‘Carve Out’.Two key markets are carved out for minimal FCC oversight and therefore would not be subject to many ‘net neutrality’ and access requirements.

First area is ‘differentiated online services’ that integrate application services with bandwidth – “healthcare monitoring, the smart grid’ etc. i.e. vertical markets where performance and security must be guaranteed. The proposed Verizon and Google approach allows each application to be ‘nailed-up’ to a specific network - rather than the Virtual Private Networks VPNs) with Service Level Agreements(SLAs) that operate today. This could lead to significant innovation – if only it were not based on exclusive bi-lateral transport and applications vendor deals. Haven’t we been here before? Didn’t this lead to the original Enhanced vs. Basic Services split of Computer Enquiry II.  And it recreates the comparatively unsuccessful ‘Walled Garden’ approach to applications.

Second ‘carve out’ is wireless broadband which is claimed to have “unique technical and operational characteristics” and to be “more competitive and changing rapidly”, so “in recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace” Verizon and Google recommend against applying any of the “wireline principles” except transparency.

Broadband is Broadband is Broadband….Although wireless has historically had special treatment, mobile broadband is rapidly reaching parity with wireline speeds and quality. Over the next two years applications will operate seamlessly across wireless and wireline networks and many users may not even be aware which network they are on.

To users Broadband is Broadband. All applications require an appropriate class of service at a competitive price. Special value added networks and mobile broadband cannot and should not be carved out from the general area of FCC broadband service oversight.

Reactions and Furor on both sides of the ‘pond’

In the US, Wall Street Journal welcomes this ‘Traffic Plan’ and TIA notes that the “Verizon and Google…rightly addressed important issues such as the need for network management welcoming it as a “step in the right direction … and a possible solution to the uncertainty created by the Comcast decision.”

But bloggers and the New York Times Opinion page started discussing carrier/search engine business alliances and making jokes about ‘VerGoogle’ that have now prompted a strong tweet denial from Google “We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.”

Wired magazine however, describes the ‘differentiated online services network’ as a “left-field proposal to anticipate an entirely new information highway for ‘fast lanes’” and believes that “Google and Verizon have proposed creating a second, paid-access-only internet” “over an unspecified global network”. Could that be Verizon’s new Packet Optical Transport Platform (P-OTP) network?

Across the pond reactions are still evolving. Financial Times subtly points out that “industry insiders on Capitol Hill and at the FCC are questioning Google’s motives for an apparent about-face on its position as one of the most powerful advocates of net neutrality.

Others reflect the stronger view that the EU is taking on Net neutrality.with one blogger warning that “An obvious outcome … is that when Google is dragged backwards through an antitrust investigation by the EC or DoJ, it will find no favours from civil society after this betrayal…..Good luck, Google - you thought China was sticky in terms of political support, you'll find that was a storm in a delicate teacup.”