[manquer]

This is not a court. Amazon does not have prove anything to anyone.

There is going to be a program that will have rules to detect patterns in customer traffic and automatically block when those patterns are tripped.

At best you could complain in the forums and maybe if you are lucky a sympathetic community manager may look into your use case.

[cstrahan]

> Amazon does not have prove anything to anyone.

True. And no one has said that they must prove anything to anyone.

Amazon wants to make money, so they probably don't want to terminate the service of people who are acting in good faith. But that's just another way of saying that they probably want to determine with some certainty that someone is not acting in good faith before terminating their service.

So it's not that Amazon needs to prove anything to anyone. But they do want to prove something to themselves.

[manquer]

In this case they are actually losing money not gaining by allowing this kind of abuse, both because the bandwidth usage costs money and also because of potential lost billing from other services which now is not billed.

The Lightsail style billing model works same way shared vs leased lines works, if everyone fully used their max allocation it won't be possible to offer service at that price point. They can offer 2TB or 4TB for price because the usage modelling of target users supported that.

No company wants a customer to bypass their usage and pricing ToS even if they are not actively enforcing it, it is lost revenue and/or bringing in customers who you don't really want.

[cstrahan]

> In this case they are actually losing money not gaining by allowing this kind of abuse, both because the bandwidth usage costs money and also because of potential lost billing from other services which now is not billed.

Your statement here is absolutely correct (we are in agreement); it is also absolutely orthogonal to what I (and others) have said.

Let me use an analogy.

Marijuana is illegal in most states of the US (and, federally, it is still a controlled substance). And yet a (relatively) recent survey[1] showed that around 7% of respondents grew marijuana at home.

How is this possible? Shouldn't that be 0%? It's almost like the DEA is slacking off or something.

... or maybe it's because they can't practicably round up each and every one these people: the DEA isn't omniscient, and given the 4th amendment they can't ransack every home within the US to catch these people. If you don't do something that gives them sufficient evidence to acquire a search warrant, there's nothing they can do about you growing pot in your domicile.

Back to Amazon. Could you, at a high level, describe a process by which they could, for a given account, determine if that account's use of LightSail is legitimate, or is instead intended to avoid incurring data fees from other services? And you must satisfy some additional, absolutely crucial qualifications: this process must not negatively impact abiding users (because they would abandon AWS, resulting in financial harm to AWS), the cost to AWS of executing this process must not be prohibitive (in terms of compute, human resources, etc), and the process must be applied across all accounts within a reasonable time frame (if it takes 1 year for AWS to comb through 1% of accounts, that means you have a mere 1/100 odds of having your service terminated for abusing LightSail for an entire year).

Something being prohibited doesn't imply that it is practicably, fully enforceable.

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36288408/

[manquer]

It is pretty hard to move out of any cloud .

If your workload is just Compute or stateless with commodity or standardized API interfaces you could maybe do a move maybe.

Even for those it is fraught with problems and takes a lot of time , time you are not developing features and adding product value.

If you are using S3 or any sort of proprietary stack on AWS to the cost to migrate (retrieval + b/w or rewrite your app ) is just too prohibitive .

All cloud providers know this and plan that in their models , reason why they give out generous free tier or give a ton of money in startup programs or other hooks to get you to start .

——

AWS does not just have an all or nothing suspension policy .

From personal experience I know they do suspend your access to a single service at even single region level - our account still has SES blocked in one region because early on we handled bounces poorly and this was at least 8 years ago they even sent few warnings too, so they have pretty robust framework to handle abuse. Back then I couldn’t get it unblocked with tickets and escalations , I am sure we spending 15/20k a year then so not super small either .

These days we spend more like 250k a year on AWS and I still don’t get a proper account manager. I could perhaps get it unblocked now if I really wanted, not just worth the hassle to jump the hoops, one of the reasons why Azure is our primary cloud partner and we spend most of our money on despite subpar tech compared to AwS (GCP is 10x worse on this) .

I cannot comment on specific controls that is put on lightsail never used the service but they definitely do have a framework to suspend for every service they offer.

Just given the generous free tier, there is huge industry of using stolen credit cards to run scams or send spam on AWS which they constantly have to fight against.

[kaliszad]

Btw. Hetzner charges 1.19 €/ TB or so if you exceed the 20 TB you get even with the 4.5 €/ month VM. So obviously, AWS is charging disproportionately compared to what it actually costs to deliver that bandwidth/ traffic. These charges are great at preventing a good deal of piracy probably but they also prevent some startups from offering competitive prices or implement a simpler system.

[manquer]

Cost and price are at best correlated. Cost is at best a floor for pricing rarely the signal for it.

Bandwidth cost is very cheap for AWS and other major cloud vendor, even cheaper than likes of OVH, Hetzner buy at, because they also own good chunk of the deep sea cables in addition to DCs.

B/W specifically is charged high as a competitive moat. Every time I consider migration out of say S3, the migration costs always come out prohibitively high because of b/w pricing, so end up staying put.

That is exactly AWS wants, and so b/w is priced costliest in AWS ( even more so than Azure,GCP) because their market share is far ahead and thus have most risk of customer retention. Hetnzer and OVH have less PaaS service moat they have to worry about unlike AWS,Azure GCP , so they instead compete by setting rock bottom prices.

More market share AWS gains, less incentive they have to drop b/w pricing, only pressure to increase.