<story><title>Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft</title><url>http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-linux-boxes-hosted-by-microsoft.ars</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>revelation</author><text>Let me just make this very clear: you don&apos;t go from zero operating cost to multiple millions of hardware and colo space to do the very same thing, in a move so transparent that it needs security researchers to dig into your program to find out it has happened at all.&lt;p&gt;I guess Skype (by extension, Microsoft) is growing interested in what people are speaking about. To get hold of that data you need to route it through your own network, at significant processing and bandwidth cost.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>drzaiusapelord</author><text>Or instead of engaging in conspiracy theores with zero proof we should look at whats going on here rationally. Skype is really unacceptable in any corporate environment. I don&apos;t want a random PC on my network to be a superpeer and suddenly use my 50mbps connection routing calls to the world. Run skype for a couple of mins, fire up tcpview, and watch calls come in and out. Not only is this a waste of my resources it also provides a shit experience of dropped calls, sudden drops in quality, and connection issues. The P2P model for video and talk is suboptimal and MS knows their real customers (IT managers and IT buyers) aren&apos;t going to go for this.&lt;p&gt;I have yet to get high quality video to work on skype, even between two clients each with 10+ mbps lines. MS knows this is a problem.&lt;p&gt;More than likely Skype will be for SMB and residential use and high end enterprise will continue to use Lync or alternatives.  This is a welcome move as it legitimizes Skype for many.</text></comment>
<story><title>Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft</title><url>http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-linux-boxes-hosted-by-microsoft.ars</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>revelation</author><text>Let me just make this very clear: you don&apos;t go from zero operating cost to multiple millions of hardware and colo space to do the very same thing, in a move so transparent that it needs security researchers to dig into your program to find out it has happened at all.&lt;p&gt;I guess Skype (by extension, Microsoft) is growing interested in what people are speaking about. To get hold of that data you need to route it through your own network, at significant processing and bandwidth cost.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bradleyland</author><text>That&apos;s one possible explanation, and I think there&apos;s a healthy amount of skepticism required when analyzing moves like this, but it&apos;s not the only explanation.&lt;p&gt;Keep in mind that a large part of Microsoft&apos;s business is in the enterprise, and voice is a &lt;i&gt;huge&lt;/i&gt; application product for enterprise customers. Exchange has always had some form of voice integration. I haven&apos;t used it in years (since back when H.323 was big), so I don&apos;t know the current state of affairs, but it is just as plausible that Microsoft is moving to a more traditional client-server structure in a bid to win the mindshare of enerprise purchasers. I&apos;m particularly attached to this explanation because of my insight in to the telecom industry.&lt;p&gt;Telcos don&apos;t want to sell dumb pipes to customers, because dumb pipes are a commodity. Selling a TDM PRI with 23 voice channels is something anyone can do. Carriers are pushing customers away from these products in to SIP offerings that can integrate with customer applications because these products have high exit costs. I can swap out PRIs three times a year without much trouble. Changing application integration is far more expensive. This creates room for higher margins.&lt;p&gt;Here&apos;s the thing: with Skype, Microsoft can enter this space. I don&apos;t know exactly how Skype does it, but they manage to deliver a great VoIP product without any infrastructure considerations (network design, QoS, backhaul constraints). I&apos;ve used SIP carriers who deliver a router with preconfigured QoS that can&apos;t call quality as good as Skype.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m not suggesting there&apos;s magic here or anything, but Skype&apos;s product is damned good. If Microsoft were to integrate Skype in to Exchange, that would give them a customer endpoint that could take advantage of a network designed for voice. Exchange could keep intra-office calls local (like a PBX) and segregated on their on VLAN, while aggregating outside voice traffic on separate network interfaces, much like traditional TDM and SIP based PBX systems. This would check all the right boxes for enterprise voice managers. I&apos;m also willing to bet this would push Skype voice quality over the threshold from end-user novelty to enterprise infrastructure.&lt;p&gt;There are far too many positive business reasons from a straight forward product standpoint to jump straight to the &quot;this lets them mine customer data&quot; viewpoint.</text></comment>