Contents - AL-Tax
Contents - AL-Tax Contents - AL-Tax
138 10 Provision of CDN Services to Third Partiesbetween origin servers and the Internet (the “First Mile”); (b) the “hosting” segment,consisting of data centers and the network infrastructure that is housed inthese centers; (c) the “backbone” segment, which consists of the fiber connectionsthat link data centers to points of presence (“POPs”) and both public andprivate peering points; and, (d) the connection between end-users and the Internet(provided by Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, and referred to as the “LastMile”). 1 At each of these junctures, latency and reliability problems can and oftendo arise.If a content provider chooses to manage its own Internet-facing infrastructureand does not have sufficient bandwidth, the First Mile can cause significant delays,particularly during periods of traffic surges (for example, in response to short-termInternet marketing campaigns). Data centers, while generally better equipped withbandwidth, also suffer from traffic congestion on a regular basis. The Internet backboneis another common source of delays in data transmission, in part because ofthe complexity of its pathways. Data packets are routed from point to point on thepublic Internet, and each such “hop” requires router processing to determine thesubsequent destination. The number of hops and the potential for sub-optimal routingincreases latency. Moreover, Internet traffic may exceed the capacity of routingequipment. The Last Mile likewise has its own infrastructural shortcomings. Here,too, bandwidth constraints may be a problem. Moreover, peering points betweenISPs may be inefficient or non-functioning.CDN services providers came into being in response to shortcomings in thepublic Internet. In essence, they have knitted together parallel, private Internets,consisting of a large number of edge and storage servers, routers, switches, enablingsoftware and connectivity. These private networks have sufficient capacity and bandwidthto comfortably handle normal loads associated with rich media content, andto manage traffic spikes. CDN services providers also attempt to reduce latencyand bypass congestion entirely by caching (or storing) commonly requested objects(that is, various kinds of rich media content) on servers located in comparativelyclose physical proximity to end-users. Firms in the business of developing richmedia content utilize these alternative methods of delivering such content becausecustomer satisfaction turns on a positive viewing or listening experience, withoutdelays, freezes and other interruptions.First-generation CDN services providers built systems that were less-than-wellsuitedto handle rich media content, which requires the transfer of very large datafiles. Instead, they were built to handle the less data-intensive files initially transmittedover the Internet (e.g., web pages). Second- and third-generation CDN servicesproviders, such as Akamai, Limelight Networks, Level 3 Communications, MirrorImage, VitalStream (acquired by Internap Network Services Corporation) and PantherNetworks, designed systems that could handle a more diverse range of file sizes.To varying degrees, this mandate is manifested in:1 See Mirror Image, Powering Your Web Strategy with CDN Services, April 2007.
10.1 Summary of Key Facts 139 The particular configuration of individual CDN services providers’ edge andstorage servers; The lease of private line backbone capacity from independent companies, suchas Global Crossing, Inc.; Individual providers’ proprietary, internally-developed software that managesthe delivery of content objects, storage and retrieval of customer content libraries,activity logging and information reporting; and, Individual CDN services providers’ peering relationships with broadbandISPs.Akamai is currently the largest North American CDN services provider, withover 22,000 servers deployed globally. However, competing providers are growingrapidly, and count some of the largest multinational content providers amongtheir customers (e.g., Disney, Apple, Amazon.com, eBay, myspace.com, facebook,Microsoft and others). CDN services are marketed via webinars, newsletter sponsorships,trade shows, banner campaigns, cold calls, etc.The Group in this case employs approximately 220 people in sales and marketing,85 people in network engineering, 40 people in research and development(consisting predominantly of software engineers), and 35 people in general andadministrative capacities. Almost all of these individuals (with the exception of 15–18 people) are employed by USP, and are based in the United States. The remainingindividuals are employed by foreign affiliates, and are based overseas. The Grouphas numerous servers, routers and switches deployed throughout North America,Europe and Asia. As noted, foreign affiliates own all infrastructure assets locatedoutside North America (albeit not the proprietary software incorporated into theseassets), while USP owns all infrastructure assets within North America (and all proprietarysoftware used worldwide).As a starting point in our analysis (under both the current and proposed regimes),it is necessary to determine whether USP and its foreign affiliates collectively provideCDN services to third parties, or USP alone provides these services, albeit withthe use of servers, routers and switches owned by its foreign affiliates. We concludethat USP simply accesses network infrastructure assets owned by its foreign affiliatesand is the sole provider of CDN services as such. This conclusion is premisedon the following facts:1. The performance of CDN services requires network engineers, software engineersand administrators, and these individuals are, and will continue to be,employed solely by USP;2. In addition to hardware and enabling software, connectivity is a sine qua nonof CDN services. USP is the contract party on, and bears the cost of, its arm’slength lease of dedicated backbone network assets. It has also negotiated peeringagreements with numerous ISPs, and bears the associated settlement costs;and,3. USP is the contract party on all transactions with third party content providers.
- Page 90 and 91: 86 5 Intercompany Sale of DiamondsT
- Page 92 and 93: 88 5 Intercompany Sale of Diamonds
- Page 94 and 95: 90 6 Intercompany Sale of Medical D
- Page 96 and 97: 92 6 Intercompany Sale of Medical D
- Page 98 and 99: 94 6 Intercompany Sale of Medical D
- Page 100 and 101: 96 6 Intercompany Sale of Medical D
- Page 102 and 103: 98 6 Intercompany Sale of Medical D
- Page 104 and 105: Chapter 7Performance of Intercompan
- Page 106 and 107: 7.1 Summary of Key Facts 103orders,
- Page 108 and 109: 7.3 Value of Customer Relationships
- Page 110 and 111: 7.3 Value of Customer Relationships
- Page 112 and 113: 7.3 Value of Customer Relationships
- Page 114 and 115: 7.4 Analysis Under Existing Regime
- Page 116 and 117: 7.5 Analysis Under Alternative Regi
- Page 118 and 119: Chapter 8Replication of Internet-Ba
- Page 120 and 121: 8.1 Summary of Key Facts 117in a se
- Page 122 and 123: 8.3 Analysis Under Existing Regime
- Page 124 and 125: 8.4 Analysis Under Alternative Regi
- Page 126 and 127: 8.5 Conclusions 123USP should also
- Page 128 and 129: 126 9 Sale of Assets with Embedded
- Page 130 and 131: 128 9 Sale of Assets with Embedded
- Page 132 and 133: 130 9 Sale of Assets with Embedded
- Page 134 and 135: 132 9 Sale of Assets with Embedded
- Page 136 and 137: 134 9 Sale of Assets with Embedded
- Page 138 and 139: 136 9 Sale of Assets with Embedded
- Page 142 and 143: 140 10 Provision of CDN Services to
- Page 144 and 145: 142 10 Provision of CDN Services to
- Page 146 and 147: 144 10 Provision of CDN Services to
- Page 148 and 149: 146 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 150 and 151: 148 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 152 and 153: 150 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 154 and 155: 152 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 156 and 157: 154 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 158 and 159: 156 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 160 and 161: 158 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 162 and 163: 160 11 Global Trading of Commoditie
- Page 164 and 165: 162 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 166 and 167: 164 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 168 and 169: 166 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 170 and 171: 168 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 172 and 173: 170 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 174 and 175: 172 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 176 and 177: 174 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 178 and 179: 176 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 180 and 181: 178 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 182 and 183: 180 12 Decentralized Ownership of I
- Page 184 and 185: Chapter 13Concluding ObservationsTh
- Page 186 and 187: 13 Concluding Observations 185The r
- Page 188 and 189: Chapter 1IntroductionNational tax a
10.1 Summary of Key Facts 139 The particular configuration of individual CDN services providers’ edge andstorage servers; The lease of private line backbone capacity from independent companies, suchas Global Crossing, Inc.; Individual providers’ proprietary, internally-developed software that managesthe delivery of content objects, storage and retrieval of customer content libraries,activity logging and information reporting; and, Individual CDN services providers’ peering relationships with broadbandISPs.Akamai is currently the largest North American CDN services provider, withover 22,000 servers deployed globally. However, competing providers are growingrapidly, and count some of the largest multinational content providers amongtheir customers (e.g., Disney, Apple, Amazon.com, eBay, myspace.com, facebook,Microsoft and others). CDN services are marketed via webinars, newsletter sponsorships,trade shows, banner campaigns, cold calls, etc.The Group in this case employs approximately 220 people in sales and marketing,85 people in network engineering, 40 people in research and development(consisting predominantly of software engineers), and 35 people in general andadministrative capacities. Almost all of these individuals (with the exception of 15–18 people) are employed by USP, and are based in the United States. The remainingindividuals are employed by foreign affiliates, and are based overseas. The Grouphas numerous servers, routers and switches deployed throughout North America,Europe and Asia. As noted, foreign affiliates own all infrastructure assets locatedoutside North America (albeit not the proprietary software incorporated into theseassets), while USP owns all infrastructure assets within North America (and all proprietarysoftware used worldwide).As a starting point in our analysis (under both the current and proposed regimes),it is necessary to determine whether USP and its foreign affiliates collectively provideCDN services to third parties, or USP alone provides these services, albeit withthe use of servers, routers and switches owned by its foreign affiliates. We concludethat USP simply accesses network infrastructure assets owned by its foreign affiliatesand is the sole provider of CDN services as such. This conclusion is premisedon the following facts:1. The performance of CDN services requires network engineers, software engineersand administrators, and these individuals are, and will continue to be,employed solely by USP;2. In addition to hardware and enabling software, connectivity is a sine qua nonof CDN services. USP is the contract party on, and bears the cost of, its arm’slength lease of dedicated backbone network assets. It has also negotiated peeringagreements with numerous ISPs, and bears the associated settlement costs;and,3. USP is the contract party on all transactions with third party content providers.