[logifail]

> The industry standard

Pfft...

> for peering is paying the 95th percentile of egress or ingress depending on whichever is greater. Ingress is free for these clouds because egress > ingress overall

How about customers pay for actual usage, rather than some [fake] averaged-across-all-customers usage?

[scottlamb]

Why would the cloud provider charge for usage that doesn't actually cost them money? Unless usage patterns drastically change industry-wide, the ingress really doesn't matter to them. The egress does.

It seems entirely reasonable to look more skeptically at cloud providers' exact charges vs cost for egress, particularly when high egress fees might contribute to lock-in, and when the public price sheet vs the preferred customer pricing might differ radically. But asking them to totally restructure the charges, inventing a charge for ingress when their actual total ingress cost is zero and, short of major industry-wide usage pattern changes, will remain zero? Why would you do that?

[makomk]

Yeah, it's long been common for more traditional hosting providers to limit egress traffic and charge overage fees for going over that but have no similar limit on incoming traffic for basically the same reason: their network-wide traffic patterns mean that egress is what costs them money and ingress is effectively free on top of that.