Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Network Service Tiers

cloudplatform.googleblog.com

91–100 of 215 posts

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#91
post #50

A long standing complaint of mine is that Cloud egress pricing severely limits the usefulness of compute. If I want to say process some visual effects on a large (1TB) ProRes video, I might spend $1 on the compute but $100 on the egress getting it back. Unfortunately these changes don't really resolve that problem. "Standard" pricing is a paltry 20% less. That 1TB video egress still costs $80 and for that price I can…

> Why is "Cloud" bandwidth so damned expensive?

Because compute is the loss leader to get you in the door. The bandwidth is where they make their money.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#92

I thought they were firm supporters of Net Neutrality. Or is this somehow different case?

This is in fact the "original" case of net neutrality. Recently, the discussion was mostly about your ISP charging - either you or some site - to prioritize certain content, like streaming.

But in this context, it is about the providers of the "backbone" of the internet providing the same service to everybody. Usually, different companies and organisations had their public nets, and they allowed each others data to flow through their nets. They made so called "peering" agreements which are a bit intransparent, ISPs have to pay certain amounts depending on the traffic they cause. Then there are private connections that institutions use for themselves.

This is Google renting out their "private" net. What is different is that before, not many organisations had so massive private nets, and while you could buy traffic on them, this was something typically large organisations and companies negotiated (I know certain research institutes pay to have their data routed over a "direct cable" instead of over the regular network). Now, everybody can do so, and choose to pay for the faster route.

What they could have done instead would have been to sign peering agreements and add their connections to the "public" net.

Now, is this illegal or immoral? Well, they certainly have the right to rent out their private net. People have been doing that before. But I think net neutrality is not a binary question, but a continuum. If being able to afford a faster route means your site is faster, that violates net neutrality IMO.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#93

I quite like the way Google has drawn the map here-since no cables reach from India to Europe, they've split the map there making the paths easier to trace between Asia and NA. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QvF57n-55Cs/WZypui8H8zI/AAAAAAAAE... Compare with the difficulties of https://cloud.google.com/images/locations/edgepoint.png Elegant and subtle work. Just like the networking.

Nice find. What is the ping time from India to Iran? That is a long trip for a packet.

I was going to ask the same thing, what's up with that. Why is there no continuous connextion?

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#94
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high bandwidth price is mostly to drive away seedboxes and porn sites. Huge discounts are likely available to big customers.

They could simply ban adult websites in their ToS, I doubt this is the reason. Also seed boxes are nowhere near useful if you still would pay $10 / TB and at the same time can get traffic for free at OVH or Online/Scaleway. It's most likely vendor lock-in and people are dumb enough to pay for it.

The reason, is that bandwidth is a solid profit center for the cloud majors. Amazon initiated it, the rest are going along in cartel fashion, nobody wants to disrupt one of the lucrative angles by driving that profit center toward zero.

There's no other rational explanation why Azure or Google aren't hammering AWS on bandwidth cost as a competitive angle. They're basically conspiring in the industrial sense, no different than airlines that somehow magically agree to simultaneously raise prices or department stores that for decades all agreed not to discount the perfume etc. box section of their stores.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#95
post #40

So now we know why Google's egress was so expensive before. It was the premium offering, and standard wasn't quite ready yet.

Are we looking at the same prices ? It used to be 10x dedicated server traffic pricing ... and it still pretty much is. Let's say it's now 8x. This won't make a difference in any practical comparison.

They don't have to run faster than the bear. They just have to beat Amazon.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of amazing to watch this slow process of the content companies discover that running a global internetwork is actually difficult and expensive..

Do you really think Google didn't study it before building their network? You think they hired Vint Cerf to cook omelettes at the cafeteria, or something?

There was a leak saying that Google had no internal cost accounting until ~2011, although most of the network has probably been built after that point.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#98

How is this different from paying more for a fast lane, which net neutrality is supposed to prevent? Edit: there seems to be a bit of confusion what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the Open Internet Order of 2015 [1] which states: 18. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content,…

Since nobody has so far managed to hit the target:

This is Google acting as your network provider. You first choose Google, and then take your pick amongst their offerings. It's pretty much the same situation as it has always been for residential ISPs, where you have always had providers offering tiers at various speed/price points.

Net neutrality becomes relevant when you don't have a say in the choice of network. Practically, this will usually mean your audience's ISPs (called a "broadband provider" in that order). You get your servers set up at AWS, or GCE, or Linode or wherever you like the terms. But then, no matter what, you get an e-mail from some residential ISP in Florida, telling you that it'll cost you XX$ if you want to stream to your customers on their network at 1080p.

The problem is pretty obvious: the consumer choosing the ISP is not going to take your welfare into consideration, especially if your company doesn't even exist yet. The ISP won't be able to squeeze google, facebook, or amazon. But anything not used by 50%+ of the population simply has no power in these negotiations.

The result will be ISPs capturing almost every last cent you can earn amongst their customer base. If your service competes with any existing offering by either the ISP or a company with deeper pockets than yours, you will never have a chance to compete on quality.

Oh, and you won't just get an email from that ISP in Florida. You'll get an email from every single ISP in the world. Part of the startup decision making process will be like MadTV (if anybody remembers): should we invest these $2,000,000 into our product, or is it better spent on getting access to the markets in Iowa and eastern Michigan? Should we continue haemorrhaging money in southern Europe, or is time to cut our losses and go dark on that continent?

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#99
post #56

This precedent (including CloudFlare's new private routing) doesn't bode well for the public internet. Imagine the day when everyone has to use private routing and the public internet barely even gets maintained anymore. Of course, public internet also suffers tragedy of the commons and not much is happening on that front. Like how most people are still behind ISPs that allow their customers to spoof IP addresses. An…

This post is specifically about allowing people to use public routing when previously they were private-only.

Especially, cheaper public routing.

Net neutrality is violated IMO when only those who can afford it get faster routing [1]. The only form of price discrimination allowed is at the ends - you pay a certain amount for bandwidth and volume to your ISP or hoster. Inbetween, if you are an end customer, there is just this amorphous peering-net internet blob, where you pay market price to have stuff routed. You shouldn't care what route it takes, and the net shouldn't care what data you are sending. There are no pricing tiers.

Sure, Google is allowed to route stuff on their private net, or on the peered net. They can let other people use their private network, it happens all the time. They are not violating the letter of anything. But it is a slippery slope, and it can lead to a two-class internet, where some people can afford the "good" internet and some people can't.

[1] Edit: and I realize, in parts that is already the way it is. If you are doing high-frequency-trading, or sending huge amounts of research/big-data data, then you can pay somebody beyond paying your ISP for volume and throughput, and they will give you a custom connection. Net neutrality is not a black-white question.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#100
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think Google didn't study it before building their network? You think they hired Vint Cerf to cook omelettes at the cafeteria, or something?

There was a leak saying that Google had no internal cost accounting until ~2011, although most of the network has probably been built after that point.

I find that very hard to believe, especially has a public company. Do you have a link?
Post reply on HN