Introducing Network Service Tiers • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#211

Post by Dylan16807 » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 7:43 AM UTC

gumby wrote: post #207

and0 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Drive also forbid encryption, though?

I just checked the terms of service and they don't at all. They did ban rclone a while back but they said it was because of poor security in rclone itself, and haven't banned anything else. Interestingly they say you can't use the storage for commercial purposes (whatever that means).

rclone was sharing an API key publicly. Not really a security flaw but understandable to block. Except that they shut down the ability for anyone to get API keys a while ago, so users can't get their own.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#212

Post by grandalf » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 3:55 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #210

grandalf wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, customers who demand the higher tier service do so because their content requires it.

And Comcast Business charges more than regular internet, that's not a NN violation either. Charging more for more bandwidth is what ISPs do all the time, that doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality has to do with packet discrimination: blocking or throttling traffic based on its content or destination. Google here does neither.

> Net neutrality has to do with packet discrimination: blocking or throttling traffic based on its content or destination

So do you think that QoS to prioritize voip traffic violates network neutrality?

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#213

Post by fundabulousrIII » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

You know what? If you aren't ready to invest in infra you are out for the buck and worth a damn. I won't even mention cloud in a meeting anymore. It is plain fraud.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#214

Post by openasocket » Fri, Aug 25, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #212

openasocket wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Comcast Business charges more than regular internet, that's not a NN violation either. Charging more for more bandwidth is what ISPs do all the time, that doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality has to do with packet discrimination: blocking or throttling traffic based on its content or destination. Google here does neither.

> Net neutrality has to do with packet discrimination: blocking or throttling traffic based on its content or destination So do you think that QoS to prioritize voip traffic violates network neutrality?

That has nothing to do with this article or your claim that Google is violating net neutrality by offering different networks for different prices.

Re: Introducing Network Service Tiers

#215

Post by a-none-i-mouse » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 1:23 AM UTC

_7iun wrote: 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…

"I imagine Google's pipes are pretty empty when NA is asleep and my batch jobs aren't really going to care."

You are aware that Google is a Global Company, with users all over the 'globe' yes? That not all "people" (or "users") are in: "NA"... right?