Double paid traffic
wiki.hetzner.de
Double paid traffic
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: Double paid traffic
#2I'm not sure how to interpret this post. Is this basically: "we believe in network neutrality, but here's reality for today: your ISP won't expand capacity, so you can pay us to add special uplink"? It looks like testing the ground for idea of "pay per peering" that becomes a separate line on your invoice. (and I mean for any peering, you rent server and connectivity separately)
Re: Double paid traffic
#3Frequently 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 ambiguous finger-pointing.
What do (presumably) Comcast and these other companies say when you communicate with them about peering, and you ask them why they won't? Anyone with insight into these issues care to share the DLS/cable provider perspective? (Is there some kind of reasonable argument there we're not hearing - "Infrastructure costs are rising, you see, and we built the infrastructure we have now with a government subsidy that's no longer available. So when we expand, it's going to cost 10x as much ... " just to make something up. Is there another side to the story, or is it really just supply/demand where the providers exploit their market power? "Our customers are not likely to drop our Internet service for a competitor just because Netflix is slow. In fact, our data show that they start watching cable TV more, which is good for us - we want cable TV to be sticky. So we'll charge a fee since we're nearly a monopoly and the market will sustain it. Further, since Netflix is where all the traffic is going, we'll just charge them directly rather than expand pipes all around".) [edits]
> For this reason, interfaces are being operated at their highest capacity -- to make paid access to the DSL and cable providers' networks attractive for content providers. The end consumer is then forced to pay double for unlimited access to the Internet.
I don't entirely follow this part. Could someone clarify? Is "operating at their highest capacity" a bad thing? Is the implication "operating at their highest capacity [without expanding capacity when they should]"?
Re: Double paid traffic
#4Frequently 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. This allows providers to say "guys look, we can not increase the traffic going over the lines, so we have to priorize things. Thats 3.50€ a month per uplink"
Re: Double paid traffic
#5I'm not sure how to interpret this post. Is this basically: "we believe in network neutrality, but here's reality for today: your ISP won't expand capacity, so you can pay us to add special uplink"? It looks like testing the ground for idea of "pay per peering" that becomes a separate line on your invoice. (and I mean for any peering, you rent server and connectivity separately)
I don't think it's quite as you put it. I think Hetzner is saying more:
===
We believe in net neutrality, but some of our customers have noticed that users of these telecom companies cannot access their services during peak hours, or the service is quite slow.
Since we cannot change market dynamics, we are offering our customers a way to offer their customers faster service during peak periods with this "pay per peering" option. ===
My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that Hetnzer is telling existing customers that instead of having to install servers within the ISP network, they can instead pay a marginal fee per month to bypass the congested peering links to these providers.
Re: Double paid traffic
#6Frequently 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…
> I don't entirely follow this part. Could someone clarify? Is "operating at their highest capacity" a bad thing? Is the implication "operating at their highest capacity [without expanding capacity when they should]"?
Yes. Basically existing links (thru transit providers) is saturated, if you(content provider) want good connectivity with these end-user networks you gotta pay more for direct connection.
Re: Double paid traffic
#7Frequently 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…
The latter. There is no incentive to pay for additional bandwidth if there is enough capacity for everyone, so supply is restricted. Thus the ISP saves on network infrastructure and gets additional income to prioritize higher-status traffic. What a clusterfuck, I'm embarrassed by my government.
Re: Double paid traffic
#8I'm not sure how to interpret this post. Is this basically: "we believe in network neutrality, but here's reality for today: your ISP won't expand capacity, so you can pay us to add special uplink"? It looks like testing the ground for idea of "pay per peering" that becomes a separate line on your invoice. (and I mean for any peering, you rent server and connectivity separately)
Well, it's not really a case of net neutrality. Packets aren't being given priority. It's just a simple case of: ISPs are at capacity, connection slow, use these servers instead.
Re: Double paid traffic
#9I'm not sure how to interpret this post. Is this basically: "we believe in network neutrality, but here's reality for today: your ISP won't expand capacity, so you can pay us to add special uplink"? It looks like testing the ground for idea of "pay per peering" that becomes a separate line on your invoice. (and I mean for any peering, you rent server and connectivity separately)
I think this might actually a good idea. Instead of just paying the peering fee quietly, they give customers the choice to vote with their money. Alas, "customers" here are not end users, but companies who provide content on the internet.
I really like that paying up to DTAG is not the default and is more bureaucratic. This might already be enough to kill the ISPs' profiteering schemes, similiar to what happened with the Leistungsschutzrecht (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_...) in Germany.
Re: Double paid traffic
#10> They now also want to collect revenue by charging large content providers fees for access to their network
Isn't what they are advocating for the exact opposite of net neutrality? Everyone's connection is saturated, but they argue that because they are a large content provider they should get special treatment and not need to pay for direct access. Smaller companies are equally affected during peak hours, but they would need to pay for that same privilege? If not, what is too small?
There seems to be a trend of adding "free peering" into the net neutrality debate. Unless you're carrying equal bit-miles, free shouldn't even enter into the equation. If data flows unequally, money should flow the other direction.
I think a lot of companies are leveraging the current hate for cable companies to get out of properly engineering their infrastructure. People have leased lines, built out additional datacenters and paid for colos around the world for years and it was never "extortion" until a popular company twisted the definition of net neutrality a bit so they wouldn't need to build their own datacenters.