4 ms·

I'm referring to Cloudflare as the network provider. It seems not-net-neutral to be charged different amounts depending on the relationship between the storage

I'm referring to Cloudflare as the network provider. It seems not-net-neutral to be charged different amounts depending on the relationship between the storage provider and the network provider. If the argument is a semantic one, that net neutrality is so narrowly defined that it doesn't apply to them as a CDN rather than a conventional ISP, it still stands that the situation is not-net-neutral if we generalize that to include CDNs, which it ought to, since that's what the N stands for.

khc 6y ago
cloudflare is not charging different amount for different storage providers, some storage providers are waiving the fee when the upstream is cloudflare. disclaimer: ex-cloudflare
- anotheracct_ 6y ago
  So, Backblaze is not-net-neutral.
  - atYevP 6y ago
    As far as our service is concerned everyone pays the same price for B2 Cloud Storage, $0.005/GB. We're not a network provider and in this case neither is Cloudflare. We are both service providers. The partnership between us simply allows people to move data between us freely, but you still need to pay Backblaze B2 for the storage of the data, and you need to play Cloudflare for the distribution!
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    You are ignoring the responses to your original point. This is not relevant to net neutrality.
    - anotheracct_ 6y ago
      I think I addressed that comment, actually!
toast0 6y ago
Network neutrality is a difficult concept to apply because its core concept doesn't map well to reality. The core concept, in my mind, is that all packets should be treated equally, and should cost the customer the same amount per byte. The problem is that different packets take different network paths and have different costs to your provider. The bandwidth alliance partners are exchanging traffic via peering links, so there's only the fixed costs of equipment and any port charges/interconnection fees to the peering facility. Packets sent to other destinations may pass through a paid transit link and cost the provider. If your provider charges you the same amount for both types of packets, they're not being transparent about their network costs which is bad for you, and is also bad for them, because you may be able to adjust your traffic so more is settlement free and less is paid --- but you won't do that without an incentive. Of course, if you don't like how Backblaze manages its network, there's a bunch of other network storage vendors who you could switch to (many of which are members of the Bandwidth Alliance). Or, it's not too hard to build a storage box or two and get them into a colocation somewhere. For your residential ISP though, for most people, if you don't like the network policies, you might have another option, but they will likely have similar policies. You don't have meaningful choice in a single residence, and moving residences to get better choices isn't a meaningful option either. So, network neutrality is a policy to (attempt to) regulate residential ISP behavior, in order to provide a reasonable policy for users. It's still a problem that it doesn't match reality, and it doesn't provide user choice, but it has gotten a lot of support. I would rather see mandatory line sharing for residential ISPs, it's a lot easier to define and with proper regulation offers a path towards consumer choice, and gives people a way to take action if their provider has poor network policies --- if your provider runs an acceptable last mile service, but provides poor interconnection to the rest of the world, you could become a line sharing partner and provide better interconnection to the world without having to build out an overlay last-mile network (which is incredibly capital intensive and difficult)
- fragmede 6y ago
  Is it really that difficult a concept? Comcast charging Netflix for access to Netflix's customers, when Netflix's customers are paying Comcast for Internet access, is bullshit. Reword it to be generic, and dress it up in more polite language, but that's what it is. Comcast, nor any other ISP, doesn't get to shake down Netflix or Google or Facebook nor any service providers, big or small, on the Internet. Sure, behind the scenes there are backbone providers and peering arrangements and BGP, but those are technical details. Network neutrality means as a consumer I pay an ISP and get connected to the Internet. Whereas Comcast is a cable TV company, the game between companies of consumer chicken is not theoretical, eg https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/why-you-still-cant-watch-the-avalanche-and-nuggets-on-comcast-directv-dish https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/why-you-sti... https://mynbc15.com/news/local/att-and-directv-have-removed-wpmi-and-wjtc-utv-44-from-their-systems https://mynbc15.com/news/local/att-and-directv-have-removed-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cbs-blackout-on-directv-is-whats-wrong-with-the-tv-market/2019/07/22/f7ad58a6-ac9b-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cbs-blackout-on-dire...
manigandham 6y ago
Cloudflare doesn't charge for bandwidth, it's as neutral as it gets. The charges are from the cloud (storage) providers. And most of them charge for bandwidth usage, but they don't discriminate based on what data you send. It doesn't matter if it's source code, photos, or linux binaries so there's no net-neutrality issue here. You can potentially argue that Backblaze is discounting traffic based on the upstream network but that's not active discrimination. There are hard costs to internet transit and some companies can offer better pricing depending on where the traffic goes. For example, downloading from Australia is more expensive than downloading in America because of the infrastructure costs, and this isn't considered a net-neutrality violation.

khc 6y ago

cloudflare is not charging different amount for different storage providers, some storage providers are waiving the fee when the upstream is cloudflare. disclaimer: ex-cloudflare

anotheracct_ 6y ago
So, Backblaze is not-net-neutral.
- atYevP 6y ago
  As far as our service is concerned everyone pays the same price for B2 Cloud Storage, $0.005/GB. We're not a network provider and in this case neither is Cloudflare. We are both service providers. The partnership between us simply allows people to move data between us freely, but you still need to pay Backblaze B2 for the storage of the data, and you need to play Cloudflare for the distribution!
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  You are ignoring the responses to your original point. This is not relevant to net neutrality.
  - anotheracct_ 6y ago
    I think I addressed that comment, actually!

toast0 6y ago

Network neutrality is a difficult concept to apply because its core concept doesn't map well to reality. The core concept, in my mind, is that all packets should be treated equally, and should cost the customer the same amount per byte. The problem is that different packets take different network paths and have different costs to your provider. The bandwidth alliance partners are exchanging traffic via peering links, so there's only the fixed costs of equipment and any port charges/interconnection fees to the peering facility. Packets sent to other destinations may pass through a paid transit link and cost the provider. If your provider charges you the same amount for both types of packets, they're not being transparent about their network costs which is bad for you, and is also bad for them, because you may be able to adjust your traffic so more is settlement free and less is paid --- but you won't do that without an incentive. Of course, if you don't like how Backblaze manages its network, there's a bunch of other network storage vendors who you could switch to (many of which are members of the Bandwidth Alliance). Or, it's not too hard to build a storage box or two and get them into a colocation somewhere. For your residential ISP though, for most people, if you don't like the network policies, you might have another option, but they will likely have similar policies. You don't have meaningful choice in a single residence, and moving residences to get better choices isn't a meaningful option either. So, network neutrality is a policy to (attempt to) regulate residential ISP behavior, in order to provide a reasonable policy for users. It's still a problem that it doesn't match reality, and it doesn't provide user choice, but it has gotten a lot of support. I would rather see mandatory line sharing for residential ISPs, it's a lot easier to define and with proper regulation offers a path towards consumer choice, and gives people a way to take action if their provider has poor network policies --- if your provider runs an acceptable last mile service, but provides poor interconnection to the rest of the world, you could become a line sharing partner and provide better interconnection to the world without having to build out an overlay last-mile network (which is incredibly capital intensive and difficult)

fragmede 6y ago
Is it really that difficult a concept? Comcast charging Netflix for access to Netflix's customers, when Netflix's customers are paying Comcast for Internet access, is bullshit. Reword it to be generic, and dress it up in more polite language, but that's what it is. Comcast, nor any other ISP, doesn't get to shake down Netflix or Google or Facebook nor any service providers, big or small, on the Internet. Sure, behind the scenes there are backbone providers and peering arrangements and BGP, but those are technical details. Network neutrality means as a consumer I pay an ISP and get connected to the Internet. Whereas Comcast is a cable TV company, the game between companies of consumer chicken is not theoretical, eg https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/why-you-still-cant-watch-the-avalanche-and-nuggets-on-comcast-directv-dish https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/why-you-sti... https://mynbc15.com/news/local/att-and-directv-have-removed-wpmi-and-wjtc-utv-44-from-their-systems https://mynbc15.com/news/local/att-and-directv-have-removed-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cbs-blackout-on-directv-is-whats-wrong-with-the-tv-market/2019/07/22/f7ad58a6-ac9b-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/cbs-blackout-on-dire...

manigandham 6y ago

Cloudflare doesn't charge for bandwidth, it's as neutral as it gets. The charges are from the cloud (storage) providers. And most of them charge for bandwidth usage, but they don't discriminate based on what data you send. It doesn't matter if it's source code, photos, or linux binaries so there's no net-neutrality issue here. You can potentially argue that Backblaze is discounting traffic based on the upstream network but that's not active discrimination. There are hard costs to internet transit and some companies can offer better pricing depending on where the traffic goes. For example, downloading from Australia is more expensive than downloading in America because of the infrastructure costs, and this isn't considered a net-neutrality violation.