Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by scarface74 2228 days ago
Anticompetitive behavior when they clearly state the price? Of all the things that lock you in to any provider once you are at any scale, data isn’t the biggest one.

If you have a massive amount of data, you can always get AWS to transfer it to you via a Snowball for $30/TB + a $300 fee.
2 comments
sixdimensional 2228 days ago
IANAL, but I don't believe stating a price has any impact on whether it is anticompetitive or not. If the behavior is anticompetitive, it doesn't matter if other people do it too and state their price as well.

Giving you an option to only bulk egress is not the same either, since the most common scenario for egress would be operational day-to-day inter-network scenarios.

If there is an unreasonably high fee for exiting a provider's cloud, to any other network location, on an operational basis, it is actively discouraging exiting the provider's services creating a kind of price barrier that could be cost prohibitive for operational inter-networking.

Operational inter-networking, to me, encourages competition not discourages it.

For example, perhaps I want to use Microsoft Azure's Data Factory to move data from AWS S3 to Redshift. It is not possible as far as I know without egress from AWS to Microsoft's network, and then back again. But surely these clouds are connected with peering relationships making the cost of ingress/egress negligible, so why is this not allowed? That would allow users of the cloud to freely mix and match services from among many clouds.

The world I see today does not seem to encourage such competition.

link
sdfdsfsdf222 2228 days ago
The Bandwidth Alliance was meant to solve this problem. Azure and GCP have joined, AWS has not. https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/
link
sixdimensional 2228 days ago
Wow, I hadn't seen this. This is quite cool. So clearly somebody else at Cloudflare saw the same concern I do and came up with a creative solution. Interesting that AWS isn't playing though.
link
scarface74 2228 days ago
That’s a classic move for second tier players to come up with a standard to take on the incumbent.

Apple did the same thing with Webkit. Google came onboard and for awhile, everyone was releasing Webkit compatible browsers.

link
pests 2228 days ago
One factor could be while of course they are peered it might be paid peering or if they allowed the traffic unmetered it would upset other free peering arrangements due to subsequent asymmetrical transfer rates.
link
oefrha 2228 days ago
> you can always get AWS to transfer it to you via a Snowball for $30/TB + a $300 fee.

1. That fee is in addition to S3 retrieval costs.

> Q: What does it cost to export my data?

> In addition to the Export job fees detailed on our pricing page, you will also be charged all fees incurred to retrieve your data from Amazon S3.

https://aws.amazon.com/snowball/faqs/

2. $30/TB isn’t even cheap by itself.

link
scarface74 2228 days ago
If you’re any kind of business ,$30 a TB is cheap.

S3 request fees are $.0004 per 1000 GET requests. If you had 100000 objects (files) you would pay $40

link