3 ms·

The internet is much more than just HTTP traffic - the purpose isn't to provide access to content so the fact that these are content providers (i.e. data is req

The internet is much more than just HTTP traffic - the purpose isn't to provide access to content so the fact that these are content providers (i.e. data is requested) doesn't matter. I can host my backups via a web server at home and wget them from my remote server, the fact I "requested" that from the remote server means nothing. The ISPs customers are paying for a connection to the ISPs network, nothing more. Every connection to the network is a node - in a network neutral world the fact they are a content provider is meaningless. If they need to push more data, they need to pay. I really don't see the difference between this, and a large company attempting to send their backups via the web. We could easily set it up so the remote servers are "requesting" that data -- but it's not the cable subscriber's job to subsidize my network infrastructure so we lease a line to ensure the speed we need. We have over 100mbps connection on both sides, but that is only a 100mbps connection to the ISP. If we need to move data at that speed all the way from point A to B, then we need to pay for the infrastructure to do that.

msandford 11y ago
What is the internet protocol by which you push data from one node to another without the other node's consent? Every one I can think of would generally be called a DoS attack. There's no such thing as "push" data, it's like trying to push a rope. Any reasonably sized data stream has the consent of both parties on the network.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  The internet is not the web. SMTP is "push", VoIP is "push", scp from my local machine to a remote machine is "push" ... sure, there generally should be some form of consent on the part of the receiving party, but just because HTTP is limited to pulling stuff, doesn't mean there aren't less limited protocols around.
  - msandford 11y ago
    SMTP: nope, the server accepts your connection before you do anything VoIP: generally negotiated somehow before the UDP "pushing" happens scp: just because in your mind it's a "push" doesn't make it so. In reality the other machine is sending you acks, without which your machine wouldn't continue "push"ing and thus, again consent is required. finally you're logged in to that other machine which nearly universally equates to consent
Natanael_L 11y ago
Then the correct solution is to use those peering agreements in between ISP:s to get that money to expand the infrastructure as necessary, and if the ISP:s with customers creating the traffic can't pay then they can chose between stopping the traffic or charging their own clients more. In no circumstance should an ISP be directly charging the customer of another ISP.
- thomaskcr 11y ago
  I agree but that's not what's happening here. They are just directly passing on the cost to provide service - the customers are paying Hetzner not the ISP (unless I'm reading wrong - but I did double check). In this situation, Core-Backbone pays for peering with DTAG and Hetzner pays them to transport their data. I'm not seeing how that is an ISP billing another ISPs customer? Hetzner is paying Core-Backbone, Core-Backbone is paying DTAG. Same as Netflix paying Cogent to transport their data.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    I'm primarily thinking of cases here like consumer ISP:s wanting to charge Netflix directly. This particular case might be quite different from what I had in mind.
Cakez0r 11y ago
"The ISPs customers are paying for a connection to the ISPs network, nothing more." They are also (usually) paying for a specific connection speed. If a customer is paying for a 100mbps connection and Hertzner has 100mbps of spare bandwidth, but the ISP consistently only has capacity to relay 20mbps per second from Hertzner to my computer, then I would argue that it is the ISP's responsibility to upgrade their hardware so that they can fulfil their obligations to customers that they have sold 100mbps connections to.

msandford 11y ago

What is the internet protocol by which you push data from one node to another without the other node's consent? Every one I can think of would generally be called a DoS attack. There's no such thing as "push" data, it's like trying to push a rope. Any reasonably sized data stream has the consent of both parties on the network.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
The internet is not the web. SMTP is "push", VoIP is "push", scp from my local machine to a remote machine is "push" ... sure, there generally should be some form of consent on the part of the receiving party, but just because HTTP is limited to pulling stuff, doesn't mean there aren't less limited protocols around.
- msandford 11y ago
  SMTP: nope, the server accepts your connection before you do anything VoIP: generally negotiated somehow before the UDP "pushing" happens scp: just because in your mind it's a "push" doesn't make it so. In reality the other machine is sending you acks, without which your machine wouldn't continue "push"ing and thus, again consent is required. finally you're logged in to that other machine which nearly universally equates to consent

Natanael_L 11y ago

Then the correct solution is to use those peering agreements in between ISP:s to get that money to expand the infrastructure as necessary, and if the ISP:s with customers creating the traffic can't pay then they can chose between stopping the traffic or charging their own clients more. In no circumstance should an ISP be directly charging the customer of another ISP.

thomaskcr 11y ago
I agree but that's not what's happening here. They are just directly passing on the cost to provide service - the customers are paying Hetzner not the ISP (unless I'm reading wrong - but I did double check). In this situation, Core-Backbone pays for peering with DTAG and Hetzner pays them to transport their data. I'm not seeing how that is an ISP billing another ISPs customer? Hetzner is paying Core-Backbone, Core-Backbone is paying DTAG. Same as Netflix paying Cogent to transport their data.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  I'm primarily thinking of cases here like consumer ISP:s wanting to charge Netflix directly. This particular case might be quite different from what I had in mind.

Cakez0r 11y ago

"The ISPs customers are paying for a connection to the ISPs network, nothing more." They are also (usually) paying for a specific connection speed. If a customer is paying for a 100mbps connection and Hertzner has 100mbps of spare bandwidth, but the ISP consistently only has capacity to relay 20mbps per second from Hertzner to my computer, then I would argue that it is the ISP's responsibility to upgrade their hardware so that they can fulfil their obligations to customers that they have sold 100mbps connections to.