Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Double paid traffic

wiki.hetzner.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Double paid traffic

#91

Post by germanier »

scurvy wrote: post #82
germanier wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. While there is an east/west divide in Germany, it's along the former border. Bavaria is amongst the most expensive places in Germany in regards to labor and land. Also not more government subsidies than anywhere else in the former West. Sure, you save a lot by going east. But that means the real east, i.e. the new states.

I'm really dubious of the claim that labor in .de is super expensive. I know that most software devs there make way less thank 100K euro's/year. That's much, much lower compared to the US. Housing costs (buy/rent) in .DE are much lower compared to the US as well. I have coworkers in Berlin who are pitching me to move over there because it's so easy to live well there. Edit: I think the problem with "high labor costs"…

Note that in this subthread we were just discussing differences in costs within Germany, nothing more, nothing less. Nobody claimed that labor and land was expensive compared to say the US. Only that it is much, much cheaper in Chemnitz than in Nuremberg. Just 200km away from each other but worlds apart in operating costs.

Re: Double paid traffic

#92

Post by scurvy »

germanier wrote: post #91
scurvy wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really dubious of the claim that labor in .de is super expensive. I know that most software devs there make way less thank 100K euro's/year. That's much, much lower compared to the US. Housing costs (buy/rent) in .DE are much lower compared to the US as well. I have coworkers in Berlin who are pitching me to move over there because it's so easy to live well there. Edit: I think the problem with "high labor costs"…

Note that in this subthread we were just discussing differences in costs within Germany, nothing more, nothing less. Nobody claimed that labor and land was expensive compared to say the US. Only that it is much, much cheaper in Chemnitz than in Nuremberg. Just 200km away from each other but worlds apart in operating costs.

Ahh, OK. Thanks!

Re: Double paid traffic

#93

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

bakhy wrote: post #52

what if, for example, Netflix did something like this, and charged a higher subscription fee to, e.g., Comcast customers? though i don't believe this would solve the problem, it might bring the issue of net neutrality closer to home for many customers, and weigh on their decision which ISP to take (if they even have the choice, which would be an issue in the US, i presume?). and it's ultimately fair - why would all u…

I think this would settle the net neutrality debate practically overnight and personally back this suggestion 100%!

Re: Double paid traffic

#94

Post by bduerst »

tajen wrote: post #79
metalliqaz wrote: post #64

This is the correct approach. The ISP pulls their bullshit. Service passes the cost on to customers. Customers move to different ISP. ISP eventually learns lesson. Of course, this only works if there is competition between ISPs.

Yes, and where are the JS libraries that show a warning to customers of networks operating at lower capacity? All ISPs have available bandwidth for speedtest.com, but when it comes to Youtube or Netflix, it requires a warning.

SpeedOf.me works pretty well, but it would be nice to have a browser extension that notified me whenever a site loaded more slowly for me than others in the region on different ISP.

Re: Double paid traffic

#95

Post by rayuela »

bakhy wrote: post #52

what if, for example, Netflix did something like this, and charged a higher subscription fee to, e.g., Comcast customers? though i don't believe this would solve the problem, it might bring the issue of net neutrality closer to home for many customers, and weigh on their decision which ISP to take (if they even have the choice, which would be an issue in the US, i presume?). and it's ultimately fair - why would all u…

This doesn't work when Comcast offers services that directly compete with Netflix, it just makes Comcast streaming services seem relatively less expensive.

Re: Double paid traffic

#96

Post by Mahn »

nulltype wrote: post #76
metalliqaz wrote: post #64

This is the correct approach. The ISP pulls their bullshit. Service passes the cost on to customers. Customers move to different ISP. ISP eventually learns lesson. Of course, this only works if there is competition between ISPs.

Wait, but the customers here are Hetzner's customers, right? How would they move to a different ISP?

Hetzner is not an ISP but a hosting/servers/colocation company. The ISPs are the companies end customers are using to access internet in the first place (Deutsche Telekom, AT&T, etc)

Re: Double paid traffic

#98

Post by fweespeech »

rmoriz wrote: post #74
amazon_not wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's a hoax to drive cusomers mad/against Deutsche Telekom. You don't need a hoax for that. Everybody in the industry is already pissed at DTAG. > - It's not possible to announce a specific (premium) routing for just a single IP address. Wrong. Google source based routing. You'll get asymmetric routing, but that's rarely an issue for content providers. > - Current DTAG->Hetzner traffic uses AS33891 That's e…

> That's exactly what the article states. No. Hetzner is not able to provide direct Telekom traffic. Their offer is missleading. Hetzner makes a profit of 36mio EUR/year. It's a shady move. Telekom sucks but Hetzner is not any better.

> No. Hetzner is not able to provide direct Telekom traffic. Their offer is missleading.

Now you are just outright lying and not reading the text of the article:

> This option costs € 4.20 a month for all of our servers. With this add-on, we will connect an uplink to DTAG via Core-Backbone

Re: Double paid traffic

#99

Post by fiber »

scurvy wrote: post #84
Nyr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, since you will be forced to use transit to reach many of your visitors. You don't even have the choice of direct connections to all of the world with just a single server in Germany.

There are reach products that will help you connect and peer to providers in remote IX's. You can peer with them directly, then have their traffic ride on your network all the way back. MPLS is a wonderful thing. Yeah, you'll still need a lot of transit to reach people, but you can also peer with who you want.

Provided "who you want" wants to peer with you. Peering is a mutual relationship after all.

Re: Double paid traffic

#100

Post by fiber »

1gn1t10n wrote: post #20
Pyxl101 wrote: post #3

Frequently it seems as though statements by neutrality advocates mention "providers" without naming any. Who are the providers that misbehave, and what are they doing? Can we see a graph of their traffic and a depiction of the misbehavior? (Saturated links, offers to peer and expand the links that are refused, etc.) I'd love it if the evidence were laid out. Unfortunately at the moment, it seems like there's a lot of…

> Is "operating at their highest capacity" a bad thing? Yes, it's a bad thing. Internet traffic is bursty so usually you have to overprovision a lot to deal with the spikes. Operating at full capacity means that they get money for a service that they cannot fullfil. This is their intended goal such that later they can ask money from whoever wants to have priority.

That is just a different way of saying their (DSL) customers are their product, not their customers.
Post reply on HN