7 ms·

Don't offer unlimted 1Gbps up/down if you're not willing to make good on that promise. Companies shouldn't be allowed to choose how much is too much when the u

Don't offer unlimted 1Gbps up/down if you're not willing to make good on that promise. Companies shouldn't be allowed to choose how much is too much when the usage in question is within the scope of an agreed upon contract.

nemothekid 13y ago
Allowing potentially every user to utilize 75% of 1 Gbps up/down service 24/7 is crazy. I don't imagine Google is doing this to line their pockets - the infrastructure was created with certain assumptions in mind and when someone is using it outside of the parameters, it becomes a headache for the engineers. Here's an analogy - Amazon's AWS service. When you have noisy neighbors - people using AWS's service in a way Amazon did not expect, it degrades performance for everyone else. Now while for Amazon it makes sense to increase server capacity, noisy "consumer internet" should upgrade to a business class connection. And again, it is within the scope of agreed contract, its in the article. I don't think its insane to offer a certain guarantees of a service (1 Gbps up/down) within limitations (you won't be using 75% of it 24/7).
- JoshTriplett 13y ago
  > And again, it is within the scope of agreed contract, its in the article. I don't think its insane to offer a certain guarantees of a service (1 Gbps up/down) within limitations (you won't be using 75% of it 24/7). Then specify the limits up front, rather than promising a gigabit connection. Metered Internet access is potentially reasonable, unless the limitations are arbitrary, undocumented, and capricious.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    >Metered Internet access is potentially reasonable Except when its not, because everyone will bitch & moan about rocking the boat. When Comcast added the 250GB monthly limit, there was a large vocal minority that made sure that that restriction never left trail.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      That's because 250GB is stupidly low. It equates to only 4% utilization on a 20mbps connection. I can buy 250GB in a datacenter for a dollar. And on top of that the cap didn't grow over time to reflect increased bandwidth needs and decreasing bandwidth costs. Give me a cap that represents fair bandwidth prices and I won't object.
      - kbenson 13y ago
        250GB may be low, but if you think that you can equate data center prices to prices for transit delivered to an end-user's address, you aren't thinking hard enough.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        Educate me. As far as I know, the only expensive part is in establishing a connection to a user. The cost of extra data is only in the backbone parts of the network, and those do not eat a large portion of revenue.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        Old, but very detailed: http://drpeering.net/white-papers/A-Business-Case-For-Peering.php http://drpeering.net/white-papers/A-Business-Case-For-Peerin...
        kbenson 13y ago
        In short, data centers are generally located at the core of networks, end users are, by definition, at the fringe of the network. All the equipment and lines between the core and the end user add to the cost to supply bandwidth through up-front purchasing cost, maintenance cost and configuration cost. All of those are costs that would not have to be paid if they did not supply internet to end users. To assume that the cost of just supplying bandwidth to a date center is the same as through all that infrastructure is to assume the cost of all that is zero, or close enough they write it off, while in truth it probably accounts for the lion's share of their overhead.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  If you want to provide a given level of service then say so. Is it 1Gbps up/down with a 1TB/month transfer limit? (That's less than three hours per month at 1Gbps, FWIW.) Is there no guarantee of performance, so you get 1Gbps sometimes but only 100Mbps when the network is congested? Spell it out. Just saying "no servers" is a cop out that lets them cancel service for half their customers whenever they please because so many people are going to be violating it, probably without even knowing it.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > And again, it is within the scope of agreed contract The controversy is not over whether it is within the scope of the Terms of Service. It is whether the Terms of Service are consistent with the FCC's Open Internet Report and Order.

nemothekid 13y ago

Allowing potentially every user to utilize 75% of 1 Gbps up/down service 24/7 is crazy. I don't imagine Google is doing this to line their pockets - the infrastructure was created with certain assumptions in mind and when someone is using it outside of the parameters, it becomes a headache for the engineers. Here's an analogy - Amazon's AWS service. When you have noisy neighbors - people using AWS's service in a way Amazon did not expect, it degrades performance for everyone else. Now while for Amazon it makes sense to increase server capacity, noisy "consumer internet" should upgrade to a business class connection. And again, it is within the scope of agreed contract, its in the article. I don't think its insane to offer a certain guarantees of a service (1 Gbps up/down) within limitations (you won't be using 75% of it 24/7).

JoshTriplett 13y ago
> And again, it is within the scope of agreed contract, its in the article. I don't think its insane to offer a certain guarantees of a service (1 Gbps up/down) within limitations (you won't be using 75% of it 24/7). Then specify the limits up front, rather than promising a gigabit connection. Metered Internet access is potentially reasonable, unless the limitations are arbitrary, undocumented, and capricious.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  >Metered Internet access is potentially reasonable Except when its not, because everyone will bitch & moan about rocking the boat. When Comcast added the 250GB monthly limit, there was a large vocal minority that made sure that that restriction never left trail.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    That's because 250GB is stupidly low. It equates to only 4% utilization on a 20mbps connection. I can buy 250GB in a datacenter for a dollar. And on top of that the cap didn't grow over time to reflect increased bandwidth needs and decreasing bandwidth costs. Give me a cap that represents fair bandwidth prices and I won't object.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      250GB may be low, but if you think that you can equate data center prices to prices for transit delivered to an end-user's address, you aren't thinking hard enough.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        Educate me. As far as I know, the only expensive part is in establishing a connection to a user. The cost of extra data is only in the backbone parts of the network, and those do not eat a large portion of revenue.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        Old, but very detailed: http://drpeering.net/white-papers/A-Business-Case-For-Peering.php http://drpeering.net/white-papers/A-Business-Case-For-Peerin...
        kbenson 13y ago
        In short, data centers are generally located at the core of networks, end users are, by definition, at the fringe of the network. All the equipment and lines between the core and the end user add to the cost to supply bandwidth through up-front purchasing cost, maintenance cost and configuration cost. All of those are costs that would not have to be paid if they did not supply internet to end users. To assume that the cost of just supplying bandwidth to a date center is the same as through all that infrastructure is to assume the cost of all that is zero, or close enough they write it off, while in truth it probably accounts for the lion's share of their overhead.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
If you want to provide a given level of service then say so. Is it 1Gbps up/down with a 1TB/month transfer limit? (That's less than three hours per month at 1Gbps, FWIW.) Is there no guarantee of performance, so you get 1Gbps sometimes but only 100Mbps when the network is congested? Spell it out. Just saying "no servers" is a cop out that lets them cancel service for half their customers whenever they please because so many people are going to be violating it, probably without even knowing it.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> And again, it is within the scope of agreed contract The controversy is not over whether it is within the scope of the Terms of Service. It is whether the Terms of Service are consistent with the FCC's Open Internet Report and Order.