4 ms·
> They make distinctions on paying for more bandwidth, not that they are giving you an inferior product performance wise. I think this is a non-sequitur. Bandw
by flumpcakes 5y ago
> They make distinctions on paying for more bandwidth, not that they are giving you an inferior product performance wise.
I think this is a non-sequitur. Bandwidth is a fundamental property of the performance of a system, if you can "pay for more bandwidth" then you are literally getting an inferior product when you do not pay.
Consider the implementation for "paying for more bandwidth". I assume that it is the same copper cabling hitting the same switches for fee paying and non-fee paying customers so the only way to "offer more bandwidth" is to implement some kind of quality-of-service metric on the network. This is explicitly giving the non-fee paying customer an inferior product.
- judge2020 5y ago> Test up to $50 of traffic for free. Pay as you go from there with bandwidth pricing. Looks like it's just post-use monitoring that'll cut off the account after it exceeds the trial limit or start billing per-GB; it doesn't say 'slower connection', so CF didn't realize that a trial account would affect their benchmarks regarding Compute@Edge
- rileymat2 5y agoPeople have stopped using "bandwidth" as we used to. It now means a total sum of the amount transferred in a lot of cases, not the "width" of the pipe. It is more evident here: https://www.fastly.com/pricing/#bandwidthpricing https://www.fastly.com/pricing/#bandwidthpricing (To be clear, I agree with your definition, but it is not used)