4 ms·
> Oh man, there's potentially a $32k migration fee to pay for S3 egress, as well. I've known about this for a while, but never bothered to ask. Why is that kin
by pxc 3y ago
> Oh man, there's potentially a $32k migration fee to pay for S3 egress, as well.
I've known about this for a while, but never bothered to ask. Why is that kind of fee even legal? Is there anything pro-social or valuable about that kind of business practice?
- Waterluvian 3y agoThey should rebrand it Data Impound Lot.
- hyperliner 3y ago[dead]
- irjustin 3y agoI know we want to jump to hating aws but is there any info on the breakdown of this? Like who is charging the amount? Is it all aws or is there a cloudflare portion? Part of it is paying an engineer's time? How much data is being transferred? If it was pure egress fees then it's roughly ~350tb of data?
- pizzafeelsright 3y ago$0.12 per gb Four grand. It can be done cheaper over time.
- driverdan 3y agoWhy would it be illegal? You agree to it when you sign up for the service. Don't like it? Don't use the service.
- dilyevsky 3y agoWhy would that be illegal? That’s just normal egress fee x GB stored. This is known in advance so anyone storing so much data in cloud is willingly putting themselves in this position
- ArchD 3y agoOutbound traffic from S3 is not free. If the data is emigrating, of course you need some outbound traffic.
- sitkack 3y agoWhy doesn't it cost to go in?
- fbdab103 3y agoSo then you have to pay to get it back.
- charcircuit 3y agobecause in peering agreements it is convention to only charge for only ingress or egress, whichever one is bigger. Most AWS servers use more egress bandwidth than ingress bandwidth so AWS only charges for egress.
- foobarbecue 3y agoIt does seem like anti-competitive pricing.
- speed_spread 3y agoIf anything, it's their own competitivity they're harming.
- foobarbecue 3y agoIn case I wasn't clear, my argument is that egress is most expensive for someone trying to migrate away from the system (assuming a big dataset with relatively low traffic). When comparison shopping at the beginning of a project, people often neglect the cost of someday wanting to switch. So this can be hidden vendor lock-in.
- cyberax 3y agoWhy should it be _illegal_? AWS egress fees are clearly documented, it's not like they are some kind of hidden deceptive fee. Companies are free to impose whatever fees they want. You can simply just choose to not have business relationships with them. Monopolies complicate the question, but AWS is not a monopoly.
- zarzavat 3y agoBecause it may be viewed as an anti-competitive business practice intended to prevent customers from switching providers. Yes, AWS’s customers knew what they were signing up for, but AWS’s competitors and potential competitors have a right to enter the market and compete with AWS, and they can’t do that effectively if AWS is hoarding all the customers with punitive switching fees.
- cyberax 3y ago> Because it may be viewed as an anti-competitive business practice intended to prevent customers from switching providers. S3 egress rates do not prevent you from switching. Transferring out data costs about the same as 3 months of regular storage. > AWS is hoarding all the customers with punitive switching fees. The fees are not punitive. The Internet egress fees are similar to inter-region transfer fees within AWS itself.
- sitkack 3y agoSounds like a libertarian trope. Their house, their rules. AWS and all the clouds are too big. They structure prices to milk the most of their captured customers. They all price their products within parity, so on the whole there isn't a huge difference in moving. This also makes a nice natural churn between them. The clouds themselves offer almost no innovation in the computing space. You know who the real rubes are? Everyone else, chip manufacturers, storage, etc. They all made commodity things using shared protocols and people are just pissing it away. And this sht replacing everything is worse than the stuff getting recycled, hardware, ideas, all of it.
- paulddraper 3y agoIt's not like AWS charges specifically for export. This is their "normal" egress fee. Maybe too high, but it's not a "gotcha" that applies just to migrating away.
- kbumsik 3y agoBecause the egress costs money actually. Almost all cloud providers cost you for egress fee or have some limitations on egress, except Cloudflare.
- dinvlad 3y agoThe question is why egress costs this much in the first place though. All cloud providers pay for the aggregate bandwidth, but its cost seems substantially lower than what they charge for the traffic volume: https://blog.cloudflare.com/aws-egregious-egress/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/aws-egregious-egress/ https://www.lastweekinaws.com/podcast/aws-morning-brief/how-aws-is-still-egregiously-egressing/ https://www.lastweekinaws.com/podcast/aws-morning-brief/how-... Also to note that on many smaller VPS providers customers rightfully pay for the bandwidth, not total traffic. So this charging-by-traffic appears to have no other explanation than predatory practices.
- immibis 3y agoThe big clouds - AWS, GCP and Azure - all have utterly ridiculous egress fees compared to every non-"cloud" hosting service and compared to what ISPs charge for these kinds of connections. For example, AWS charges $90/TB while a typical price is more like $1/TB. It's almost certainly done on purpose to discourage you from switching away, and in the hopes that you won't notice until you deleted all other copies of your data.