15 ms·
Introducing Network Service Tiers
- heroic 9y ago> There are at least three independent paths (N+2 redundancy) between any two locations on the Google network, helping ensure that traffic continues to flow between these two locations even in the event of a disruption. As a result, with Premium Tier, your traffic is unaffected by a single fiber cut. In many situations, traffic can flow to and from your application without interruption even with two simultaneous fiber cuts. What does this mean? N+2 redundancy should mean, that even if both go down, then service will not be affected at all, no?
- hamax 9y agoN+2 usually means one redundancy for normal operations (deploys, maintenance) and one for disruptions. If the disruption happens while there is an ongoing maintenance, you'll be resilient for one event only.
- ucaetano 9y agoTwo fiber cuts in a N+2 network could overload the last remaining path, resulting in some impact on service.
- hamax 9y agoI think this would (or should) be called N+1. Edit: but you're right, this might be what they mean.
- yegle 9y agoI think "unaffected" means "even with a single fiber cut, the connection still have sufficient redundancy". With N+1 redundancy, if there's a fiber cut, I won't call the remaining connection "unaffected", since it's no longer fail-safe.
- idorosen 9y agoTL;DR: New Standard tier level is hot potato routing while existing (now called Premium) tier is cold potato routing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-potato_and_cold-potato_routing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-potato_and_cold-potato_rou...
- zeroxfe 9y agoAlso Standard tier is 24 - 33% cheaper than premium.
- panarky 9y agoOther cloud providers like AWS and Azure use hot-potato routing which has lower performance and reliability than GCP's current network offering. So Google is offering a new "standard tier" equivalent to AWS and Azure, and undercutting both of them on network egress costs by a small amount. Network egress costs are still astronomical.
- Terretta 9y agoIn late 90s, we configured AboveNet as the preferred backbone for the world’s largest Windows Media streaming network thanks to “cold potato routing” providing such a competitive advantage for broadband video. This allowed us to build out video distribution hubs rather than “edges”, giving a cost of service a fraction of competitors’. I’m surprised it took two decades to see this network policy choice productized for mass tech market.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cwt137 9y agoI thought I read an article about an online game company who was doing something similar with their users; trying to get their users on their private network as soon as possible. Does anyone else remember that article on HN?
- soccerdave 9y agoYes, it was Riot Games https://engineering.riotgames.com/news/fixing-internet-real-time-applications-part-ii https://engineering.riotgames.com/news/fixing-internet-real-...
- cwt137 9y agoThanks
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- snug 9y agoNot gaming, but Cloudflare also does this. https://blog.cloudflare.com/argo/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/argo/
- Tepix 9y agoDIDlogic also does this (voip provider)
- ssijak 9y agoReading this I just got stumped by how many stacks, layers, hardware, technologies, and knowledge incorporated into all of that those bytes needed to travel so I could read them on a laptop across the globe
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoSo is this like the app engine price hike debacle a few years ago but with "better" messaging? So "Try Network Service Tiers Today" means "Migrate to Standard Tier today to avoid the massive price increases coming soon"? But fundamentally they just massively underestimated costs and need to find a way to adjust pricing. With app engine it was very conveniently beta, so they used the end of beta for the price hike. For this, they're having to invent a "Premium" and a "Standard" Tier, and hey guess what, everyone has been using "Premium". My experience so far with Google has been "Use this now, and we'll have a massive price hike later, if we keep it around at all."
- pfg 9y agoThey announced the new prices[1]. There doesn't seem to be a price increase for most scenarios, and the price is slightly lower for some. There appears to be a $ 0.01 increase if you currently push more than 1 TB, but less than 10 TB of traffic across continents or within regions like Asia or Oceania. [1]: https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/pricing#premium_tier_pricing https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/pricing#premium_tier_...
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoSo you're saying that the fact that they have new prices now refutes my suggestion that there will be price hikes in the future? I'm saying Google has a habit of pricing something, and then hiking the price later. I said specifically, above, that this announcement is early warning of price hikes: "migrate to standard tier now before the price hikes". Your rebuttal is "but the prices right now haven't gone up"?
- pfg 9y agoOne price increase for a beta product hardly makes for a habit of increasing prices. If anything, prices in cloud computing have continuously been getting lower across the entire industry, and with margins being fairly large and the market getting more and more competitive, I imagine that trend will continue. If they'd wanted to increase prices for the premium tier, this would've been the time to do so. Instead, the kept the prices roughly the same, with small savings for some scenarios and a tiny increase for edge-cases, while introducing a cheaper tier that has feature parity with the competition and is quite a bit cheaper. Whatever your past issues with Google, I think you're way off on this.
- breck 9y agoSeeing the map of Google's network makes me appreciate more the impact of undersea cables. If you're interested in the history of earth-scale networks I recommend this free documentary on Cyrus Field and the heroic struggle to lay the first transatlantic cable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFKONUBBHQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFKONUBBHQw
- komali2 9y agoAbsolutely boggles my gorram mind the large-scale engineering that goes into making the internet work. Love the parts in Cryptonomicon where they delve into the sea cables stuff.
- kwindla 9y agoRelated, one of my favorite Wired Magazine stories -- and favorite pieces of long form journalism, period -- Neal Stephenson goes out on a boat to string some cable: https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/ https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/
- jstapels 9y agoEgress pricing for Google and AWS (sans Lightsail) continues to be one of the biggest price differences between them and smaller hosts such as Linode and DigitalOcean. I think Google missed an opportunity here. They should have cut the prices more significantly for standard tier (sacrificing performance) to make this more competitive. Right now Linode's and DO's smallest $5 plan offers 1TB of transfer, which would cost $85.00 on Google's new standard plan.
- manigandham 9y agoAre major clouds actually facing any real competition because of bandwidth pricing? On another note, Softlayer used to have generous multiple TB allocations for their dedicated servers but they took them away. It's likely that anyone needing high bandwidth, especially for static content, will have other edge networks and CDNs in place for that use case.
- user5994461 9y agoOf course not. They are not competing with Digital Ocean / Linode at all.
- jstapels 9y agoIf that's true, why did Amazon come out with Lightsail? https://amazonlightsail.com https://amazonlightsail.com
- deusex_ 9y agoThat's just a card to be in the game, it's hardly their mainline product.
- needcheapbw 9y agoMy Lightsail gives me 3TB. It's a huge card for me. The only reason I use them at all for hosting.
- sitepodmatt 9y agoI suppose this was inevitable, the costs of cold potato routing must be prohibitive, especially if we consider more exotic places, for example riding the GCP network from just a few milliseconds away in Bangkok all the way to a tiny GCP compute instance in London on practically all GCP network (exc first three hops locally). GCP network is awesome, I am surprised we are only see a small pricing reduction for standard offering, perhaps idea is to eventually make it 2-3x price, a premium worth it imo if you consider one would push most bandwidth heavy assets onto edge CDNs anyway.
- yegle 9y agoI guess you are saying "the costs of cold potato routing must be prohibitive".
- sitepodmatt 9y agoYes, correct. updated, thanks
- pg_is_a_butt 9y agothis is almost certainly related to GAE recent work on support web sockets from their various platforms. the networking layer was obviously going to need some overhaul to undo all the optimizations they did for their custom implementations for PHP/Python/Java based web apps. so, suddenly all of the optimizations that made the product a break even expense to drive adoption, it is now a product with much higher costs and potential for a single bad actor to spoil things for everyone. so, they fixed it. you're all idiots.
- benbro 9y agoCan I use the new standard tier with all services like cloud storage or only with compute instances?
- boulos 9y agoRight now (in Alpha), you have to put your own Regional Load Balancer in front of GCS [1]: > Standard tier for Google Cloud Storage can be configured by adding the bucket as the backend of cloud load balancer and then setting the network tier on the forwarding rule. For this release, you cannot directly configure the tier on the Google Cloud Storage bucket. Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (but not on this) [1] https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/docs/using-network-service-tiers https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/docs/using-network-se...
- arekkas 9y agoOk so lobby against net neutrality but don't give a * in your own network. "Don't be evil", right?
- abiox 9y agois there some notional relationship between these two things?
- jerkstate 9y agoHow 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, applications, services, or devices. To protect against “fast lanes,” this Order adopts a rule that establishes that: A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. [1] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...
- manigandham 9y agoNothing is being discriminated or artificially slowed down. You pay to use their private network. Standard tier means you leave their private network and move onto the public internet, which would be more open to ISP net neutrality issues if anything.
- jerkstate 9y agoYou are aware that the Internet is a collection of different companies running different networks, right? Google's network that is serving public traffic is part of the Internet. The inter-network routing decisions that are made are literally the crux of the net neutrality arguments made so far.
- manigandham 9y agoYes, networks comprise the internet, but it's not free to run on any of them. Some are better than others and cost more. As a typical consumer, this negotiation is out of your hands with ISPs balancing performance and profit (although tilted towards the latter) but as a Google Cloud customer, you now have some control over how much of their network you use - all the way to the edge or just regional - without any discrimination of the traffic itself.
- 9y ago
- xg15 9y agoNot that I'm really surprised, but does that map imply that Google has its own trans-atlantic undersea cables? Is there some more info about that?
- CCJK2X 9y agoNumerous cables under the Atlantic, their network map is quite something. https://cloud.google.com/about/locations/#network-tab https://cloud.google.com/about/locations/#network-tab
- gwern 9y agoAre they exclusive owner/builders of any of those? I know I've seen a number of cables which Google was a part investor/owner in, but sole ownership would be amazing.
- user5994461 9y agoA "cable" is actually comprised of many dedicated fibers, that could each one transfer some Tb/s and be leased for millions. I doubt that anyone would keep ALL of them for themselves.
- gwern 9y agoOn the other hand, if anyone could use up an entire cable, it would be Google, and there are no particular financial reasons to try to diversity - they are big enough to self-insure any cable losses.
- packetslave 9y agoand each dedicated fiber can run multiple "colors" of light, so multiple customers can have their own segment of the traffic fully isolated from each other.
- kyrra 9y agoGoogle spun up a trans-pacific cable last year[0]. "The new cable will become the sixth submarine cable that Google has a stake in (the others are Unity, SJC, FASTER, MONET and Tannat)." So it looks like Google isn't the sole owner, but they do partner with others to do these. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/12/google-and-facebook-are-building-the-fastest-trans-pacific-cable-yet/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/12/google-and-facebook-are-bu...
- _7iun 9y agoA 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 rent a beefy server with a dedicated gigabit pipe for a month. Why is "Cloud" bandwidth so damned expensive? I'd love a "best effort" or "off peak" tier. I imagine Google's pipes are pretty empty when NA is asleep and my batch jobs aren't really going to care.
- deafcalculus 9y agoThe high bandwidth price is mostly to drive away seedboxes and porn sites. Huge discounts are likely available to big customers.
- nik736 9y agoThey 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.
- adventured 9y agoThe 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.
- 9y ago
- always_good 9y agoThis 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. And nobody has reason to give a shit. We're getting pinned between worst of both worlds. It's a shame.
- skybrian 9y agoThis isn't about the last mile so there is presumably lots of competition. And it seems like some companies being large enough to build their own is another form of that? But I'm just responding with another armchair argument. It would be good to see some actual numbers about Internet health.
- cbr 9y agoThis post is specifically about allowing people to use public routing when previously they were private-only.
- captainmuon 9y agoEspecially, 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.
- jedberg 9y agoThe most interesting thing to me here is that they can actually deliver a cheaper service by going over the public internet. I would think their private net would be cheaper because they don't have to pay for transit. I guess transit is still cheaper than maintaining ones own lines...
- jerkstate 9y agoKind of amazing to watch this slow process of the content companies discover that running a global internetwork is actually difficult and expensive..
- icebraining 9y agoDo 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?
- wmf 9y agoThere 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.
- icebraining 9y agoI find that very hard to believe, especially has a public company. Do you have a link?
- skybrian 9y agoSeems like a shaky inference? Hypothetically, two tiers could have the same cost to provide, but have different profit margins. Market segmentation tends to be more about value to the customers and what they're willing to pay.
- jedberg 9y ago
- 0xbear 9y agoSo now we know why Google's egress was so expensive before. It was the premium offering, and standard wasn't quite ready yet.
- candiodari 9y agoAre 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.
- 0xbear 9y agoThey don't have to run faster than the bear. They just have to beat Amazon.
- jloveless 9y agoGoogle's network (especially w/ BBR[1]) is amazing and this makes the price point more approachable for other use cases (like running your own CDN[2]). [1] https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/07/TCP-BBR-congestion-control-comes-to-GCP-your-Internet-just-got-faster.html https://cloudplatform.googleblog.com/2017/07/TCP-BBR-congest... [2] https://blog.edgemesh.com/deploy-a-global-private-cdn-on-your-lunch-break-7550e9a9ad7e https://blog.edgemesh.com/deploy-a-global-private-cdn-on-you...
- pbbakkum 9y agoA few notes here: - An unmentioned alternative to this pricing is that GCP has a deal with Cloudflare that gives you a 50% discount to what is now called Premium pricing for traffic that egresses GCP through Cloudflare. This is cheaper for Google because GCP and Cloudflare have a peering arrangement. Of course, you also have to pay Cloudflare for bandwidth. - This announcement is actually a small price cut compared to existing network egress prices for the 1-10 TiB/month and 150+ TiB/month buckets. - The biggest advantage of using private networks is often client latency, since packets avoid points of congestion on the open internet. They don't really highlight this, instead showing a chart of throughput to a single client, which only matters for a subset of GCP customers. The throughput chart is also a little bit deceptive because of the y-axis they've chosen. - Other important things to consider if you're optimizing a website for latency are CDN and where SSL negotiation takes place. For a single small HTTPS request doing SSL negotiation on the network edge can make a pretty big latency difference. - Interesting number: Google capex (excluding other Alphabet capex) in both 2015 and 2016 was around $10B, at least part of that going to the networking tech discussed in the post. I expect they're continuing to invest in this space. - A common trend with GCP products is moving away from flat-rate pricing models to models which incentivize users in ways that reflect underlying costs. For example, BigQuery users are priced per-query, which is uncommon for analytical databases. It's possible that network pricing could reflect that in the future. For example, there is probably more slack network capacity at 3am than 8am.
- chrisabrams 9y agoPretty much every major CDN and Google/AWS have a peering agreement that gives discount egress.
- vgt 9y agoI like your thinking, but one minor clarification. BigQuery's actually introduced Flat Rate [0] ( a year ago) and Committed Use Discounts [1] (Amazon RIs are similar) since that's kind of what some Enterprises want. These are optional and flexible. I personally still hold that pay-per-use pricing is the cloud native approach [2], the most cost-efficient, and the most customer-friendly. However, it's unfamiliar and hard to predict, so starting out on Flat Rate pricing as a first step makes sense. ( work at Google and was a part of the team that introduced BQ Flat Rate) [0] https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/pricing#flat_rate_pricing https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/pricing#flat_rate_pricing [1] https://hackernoon.com/why-googles-answer-to-aws-reseved-instances-is-a-big-deal-4b9b36d8e631 https://hackernoon.com/why-googles-answer-to-aws-reseved-ins... [2] https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/02/visualizing-the-mechanics-of-on-demand-pricing-in-big-data-technologies https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/02/visualizing-t...
- brunoTbear 9y agoI 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/AAAAAAAAERw/4jLWFERtNw4KaiQsxxQIO0zCX-eXAD3ZQCLcBGAs/s1600/network-tiers-3.png https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QvF57n-55Cs/WZypui8H8zI/AAAAAAAAE... Compare with the difficulties of https://cloud.google.com/images/locations/edgepoint.png https://cloud.google.com/images/locations/edgepoint.png Elegant and subtle work. Just like the networking.
- TheSockStealer 9y agoNice find. What is the ping time from India to Iran? That is a long trip for a packet.
- orf 9y agoI was going to ask the same thing, what's up with that. Why is there no continuous connextion?
- icebraining 9y agoThere are connections, just not ones where Google own a stake. Here's a map of the submarine cables as of last year: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/05/world-submarine-cable-map.png https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/...
- packetslave 9y agoBack when I was in Google Netops we had a healthy (unofficial) fear of having the backbone connect all the way around the world in a circle, especially with high-enough bandwidth links that both directions would start to look attractive to traffic management.
- tantalor 9y agoExplain?
- CodeWriter23 9y agoIt would be nice if they would say if their pricing is per GB or per TB. https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/pricing https://cloud.google.com/network-tiers/pricing
- nealmueller 9y agoI worked on this product release, at Google. Can you guide my eye please where we don't specify TB? I'll get that fixed. I took a look and it says TB. @nealmueller if that's easier for you.
- wmf 9y agoLook where it says "$0.105". $0.105 per what? Us cloud experts know the answer, but it's not obvious on the page.
- dimva 9y agoYou are right, it does say TB everywhere, and does not mention GB anywhere. But, if this is correct and all prices are per TB, that would be a ~1000x price cut compared to your current pricing, which is per GB.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoPage has been updated to say "per GB" (in bold, lol)
- CodeWriter23 9y ago> Can you guide my eye please where we don't specify TB? I would be extremely surprised to find that the new pricing is 1/1000th what the old price was. It's not really $0.105/TB is it? I think the key confusing factor on the linked page is there is no "per" anything detailed. To answer your request for guiding your eye: http://imgur.com/a/9je4T http://imgur.com/a/9je4T Thanks for taking the time. I figured someone at Google would read my comment and review the pricing table; I did not expect to engage with someone directly involved in the product release.
- 9y ago
- Animats 9y agoDon't sign up for a Google service unless you get contract terms which say they can't terminate you at will and have penalties if they do.
- lmickh 9y agoCurious if any provider has given you similar contract terms?
- Animats 9y agoHere are Codero's terms.[1] There's a procedure for dealing with breaches of the agreement, with 7 day and 30 day notices to cure. It's not one-sided, like Google's: "Google may terminate this Agreement for its convenience at any time without liability to Customer."[2] Do you want to bet your business on that? [1] http://codero.cachefly.net/docs/legal/TOS.pdf http://codero.cachefly.net/docs/legal/TOS.pdf [2] https://cloud.google.com/terms/ https://cloud.google.com/terms/
- Thaxll 9y agoI bet if you have CP you don't wait 30days ...
- daxorid 9y agoThis is great. Thank you.
- Animats 9y agoCodero, although they now offer cloud services, started as a raw rackmount PC service, which is what I use them for. That business is generally run as equipment leasing - you lease for a term, and can renew. Those businesses generally have reasonable terms of service, because they're almost entirely business to business and the other side has lawyers.
- boulos 9y agoDisclosure: I work on Google Cloud (but IANAL) https://cloud.google.com/terms/ https://cloud.google.com/terms/ has explicit language around termination, disagreements around billing, breaking the law, etc. Sections 4 and 9 are probably the most relevant. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but read the indemnification and so on. Unlike other services at Google, we have real, paid, 24x7 support. I understand the general concern, but I think it's misplaced in this case. [Edit: whoops, missed your comment downthread. I'll circulate internally with legal]
- 0x27081990 9y agoI thought they were firm supporters of Net Neutrality. Or is this somehow different case?
- captainmuon 9y agoThis 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.
- dsr_ 9y agoSuppose you are an ISP with a new streaming video service as a customer -- ComFlix. You sell a 1Gb/s pipe to ComFlix. You buy a 10Gb/s pipe from Google. If Google limits, deprioritizes or drops traffic from ComFlix, that's Google committing a NN violation. If you limit ComFlix's 1 Gb/s pipe to 1 Gb/s, that's not a NN problem. If Google limits your 10Gb/s pipe to 10Gb/s, that's not a NN problem. If Google offers to replace your 10Gb/s pipe with a 20Gb/s pipe at the same price on the condition that video streams will be intercepted and limited so that they cannot support more than 480P, and you accept, both you and Google are violating NN. If you ask Google for a 10Gb/s pipe but they refuse to sell it to you solely because ComFlix is a competitor for YouTube, you have an interesting court case. Basically, NN violations occur when someone drops packets that they otherwise would have carried, based on the content, source or destination of those packets. But paying more for a bigger or more direct pipe by itself is not an NN problem.
- hartator 9y agoIt's kind of interesting that after being so against preferred networking via their net neutrality stance, they basically implemented it.
- grandalf 9y agoIronically, this offering is precisely the argument against network neutrality -- different customers need different QoS guarantees.
- openasocket 9y agoNot at all. Offering different bandwidths for different prices has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle of not discriminating traffic based on destination or content by blocking or throttling.
- grandalf 9y ago> not discriminating traffic based on destination or content by blocking or throttling This assumes all traffic is of the same kind, such as web traffic. For other protocols or use-cases, things like latency have a big impact on the content.
- openasocket 9y agoOK. But that doesn't have anything to do with Google offering different networks at different rates.
- grandalf 9y agoWell, customers who demand the higher tier service do so because their content requires it.
- openasocket 9y agoAnd 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.
- Tepix 9y ago> "Over the last 18 years, we built the world’s largest network, which by some accounts delivers 25-30% of all internet traffic” I think that's way more than enough already, thank you.
- unethical_ban 9y agoThe title should not have been changed - old version noted the product referenced, Google Cloud Compute.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gigatexal 9y agoI just think the funny thing is the new feature is instead of taking the hit on price for the current level of service their shiny new feature is “standard” networking! Woot!!
- kyledrake 9y agoGreat idea, but it's still way too expensive. I pay between $0.01/GB (the fancy CDN stuff) to ($0.0024/GB) from an IP transit provider for Neocities. That's market rate. I would have given them a pass at $0.02-$0.03, but not for $0.085. If you pay this "public internet" rate, you're paying essentially 2007 transit prices. I hope you don't need to ship a lot of traffic. I hope you don't need to compete with someone that's paying market rate. I would love to use GCS for our infrastructure, but with rates like this, it's hard to imagine us ever switching.
- wilson02 9y agoI have always wondered why GCP's Internet egress price is higher than other major cloud players. It is faster alright but not everything needs to be fast. Finally, Google offers a lower cost option here.
- brycen31 9y agoFurther price reduction strategy from google. Still going to advise clients to stay with premium tier unless cost is a driving factor.
- erin66 9y agoI really like that you have data (in the unnumbered figure) but shouldn't the y-axis start at 0, not 2.5 kbps?
- mariela_braun 9y agoAs a former GCP Networking PM, I'm very proud to see this capability finally making its way to the public. Congrats to you, Aspi and the rest of the team for making this happen!
- lorine60 9y agoMinimum congestion with GCP seems like a great QoS parameter
- christa30 9y agoVia the wonderful people at Google... Introducing Network Service Tiers: Your cloud network, your way
- ksec 9y agoA Naive Questions. When we say Private Networking, In Google or Amazon terms, does it actually mean Google buying / laying down Fibre from DC to DC, much like how OVH does. Or they are renting / buying dedicated links in multiple exchanges.
- josephv 9y agoCloud neutrality now
- fundabulousrIII 9y agoYou 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.