[Starlink] CDNs in space!

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 04:24:21PM -0400, David P. Reed via Starlink wrote:
> Having looked into this a lot, CDNs don't account for very much Internet traffic

It is sufficient for many ISPs to host for free the VoD suppliers caches
(including ours).

> That doesn't mean that CDN servers don't help a fair bit

I think the CDN industry, like anti virus software vendors, has done
us a disservice and made themselved self perpetuating. Their goal to
interpose themselves and take a chunk of cash has taken some pressure
off backbone growth (and cash that would have paid for it)

CDNs may have helped at the time but the 40 / 100G decision was due
to delayed need for 100G (on servers but that rolls into network too)
so it's hard to say if we'd have gone faster sooner or been delayed
waiting for technology instead.

Regardless it's left us with people feeling they need to pay CDNs for
large traffic needs and that leads to slower backbone growth.

> Also, CDN's need to be BIG to hold all the videos that people might
> choose to watch at any particular time.

They don't need to hold everything, just the sufficiently highest requested
set to save enough bandwidth to be worth the expense. SSD are large now too
(100TB but good luck space qualifying that). Being global is going to
make that harder, eg our content is largely UK limited so is a waste of
space flying over other countries.
  
> So I'm just pointing out that the business case for CDN's in space to
> merely solve Starlink's potential issues is probably not great

I agree, we're just mulling over if, and why, that might change.

> The idea that everyone watches TV and the same few seconds of content
> of a few shows that are extraordinarily popular - well, that dog don't
> hunt. It doesn't justify multicast either.

People do but not on the Internet, a lot of people watch linear TV
still despite the claims of Internet VoD suppliers who would have
you think they are the only game now.

For the BBC about 5 to 10% of viewing is VoD. We've not moved the
remaining 90% to the internet yet as there is no multicast (some
FTTH providers are deploying it internally though) and CDNs are
a poor approximation to multicast.

> So let's improve the discussion here. The Internet, for the
> forseeable future, at the edge, is unicast.

Forever most likely

We aim to move all that linear over but slowly to allow the net to grow
with it. We could not move it in one go today (though we're a step closer
in the UK with the national fibre plan) except where there is multicast.
In moving it people habits may change and it all becomes time dilated
to VoD.

> Starlink isn't a media company. It doesn't want to own all the content,
> or even host all the content.

Give them time. Everyone looks to move up the stack where there is more
money

> One thing is clear - Starlink isn't the Internet of the future. It's
> filling a niche (a large one, but a niche).

Yes, that's where we started some of this discussion, some think they
are an alternative and for some they are as needs are diverse.

brandon