

Google Serves 25 Percent of North American Internet Traffic - Libertatea
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/07/google-internet-traffic/

======
WestCoastJustin
I think Wired is using this _" Google Sets New Internet Record"_ [1] as the
source material. I think the far more interesting quote is _" 60% of all
Internet end devices/users exchange traffic with Google servers during the
course of an average day"_ [1].

[1] [http://www.deepfield.net/2013/07/google-sets-new-internet-
re...](http://www.deepfield.net/2013/07/google-sets-new-internet-record/)

~~~
thematt
I'm surprised it's only 60%. With the prevalence of Google Analytics, I
assumed it would be much higher.

~~~
kgermino
Read the entire paragraph:

"An amazing 60% of all Internet end devices/users exchange traffic with Google
servers during the course of an average day. This analysis includes computers
and mobile device _as well as hundreds of varieties game consoles, home media
appliances, and other embedded devices_ (Google’s device share is much larger
if we look only at computers and mobile devices)."[1] (SIC, Emphasis Added)

[1][http://www.deepfield.net/2013/07/google-sets-new-internet-
re...](http://www.deepfield.net/2013/07/google-sets-new-internet-record/)

~~~
zw123456
60% huh? It sounds like it's time for anti-trust case to me, hey DoJ.

------
bdcravens
_The lion’s share of it comes from YouTube._

Hardly anything surprising that YouTube is the source of most traffic. Take
out YouTube, I suspect they'd be closer to 5%. (Didn't really see a breakdown
anywhere in the article)

~~~
halfaleague
I work at Deepfield.net, the company linked to in the article and we find
YouTube takes up 78-80% of Google traffic. Google still has a several other
larger services.

~~~
mcintyre1994
Doesn't that make the parent's comment about correct? 80% off 25% is 5%, so it
matches pretty well.

------
ChuckMcM
FWIW, stories like this are one of the reasons Google maintains a high level
of secrecy. While there I asked Urs Hoezle, "Why not brag about it? Isn't that
good?" and his response was "It just makes us a target." And he is/was
correct, if your enemies don't know the extent of your strength they can't
adequately prepare and attack, if your friends don't know the extent of your
strength they have no reason to be afraid of you.

That said, this article is based on observing peering traffic -- _" It’s
impossible to get a total picture of the internet, so Deepfield’s numbers are
a best guess based on the traffic flowing through its internet service
provider partners."_ \-- and you know they have their own fiber in Kansas City
(heck they even bought into some transoceanic cables). You need only look at
their quarterly earning reports on their capital investment to get a sense of
what we're talking about. And unlike the Government, when Google spends
$4B/year on something they get a lot of bang for their bucks.

~~~
alexgartrell
I never understood Google's desire to keep things like GGC tight to the chest.
Another search engine isn't going to win or lose based upon their ability to
run caching http proxies in ISP data centers.

~~~
ChuckMcM
True but I always felt that GGC telegraphed Google's move into richer data
streams (like video, and potentially telephony) so having the information out
there would cause people to understand they were a competitor not a partner.
Looking at it from the outside, both the challenges in the Google TV project
and the Apple TV project stem, in part, by vigorous roadblocking on the part
of the content providers. So you partner with Xfinity for the last might,
great, but you have the capability to pump better content over that pipe than
they do? Not so great.

The bottom line seems to be the less you know the harder it is to guess what
they can and cannot do.

~~~
sbarre
Putting a GGC server at your ISP is one step closer to having you as a direct
customer (like in Kansas and other Google Fiber test markets), and cutting out
the middle-man entirely (in this case, your current ISP).

------
znowi
Makes me think of Google Fiber project - NSA to every home :)

------
saejox
The rest must be be torrents.

------
Newky
Read this as "Google Now" the product, please lowercase the now at least.

~~~
apendleton
Yes, I did the same thing. Case is such a useful disambiguator in English...
all the more reason to hate title case.

~~~
ScottWhigham
"... all the more reason to hate title case."

So just because a company uses an ambiguous term as a product name ("Now"),
that's the final nail in the coffin of title case? Seems a bit silly to me...

~~~
dragonwriter
> So just because a company uses an ambiguous term as a product name ("Now"),
> that's the final nail in the coffin of title case?

There's nothing ambiguous about the product name. Title case is the source of
the ambiguity (and its not specific to particular product names, it happens
anywhere where a title is an English sentence in which obliteration of the
normal capitalization distinctions creates ambiguity.)

And that's the problem with title case -- it obstructs, rather than
facilitates, clear communication.

