4 ms·

That is what they (explicitly) said in the email: users using next to no bandwidth were offsetting the costs for the heaviest users. That was no longer sustaina

• drpossum 2y ago
  I think I'm missing something then. If that were true, wouldn't you lower the network allowance and then make the product cheaper or at least priced the same? This would have the no-traffic users paying "their fair share" and the overage costs (or higher traffic addon) would make up for the heavy users. The current plan makes everything more expensive for everyone. They would do this if a) they never had a sustainable model in the first place or b) they were just being greedy
  • pas 2y ago
    They recently entered the US market, so almost surely there was some honeymoon period (ie. investment to gain market share), but likely there's a significant difference between how the IXP/bandwidth/peering market works in the US compared to their home market (EU).
    • matt-p 2y ago
      Pricing is fairly similar, particularly in ashburn. Europe can be a little cheaper, but usually not a massive amount in it.
      • pas 2y ago
        Hm, interesting! Then probably lots of "bandwidth conscious" folks pounced on on their fancy new PoP. Whatever the reason, rather strange to do this without even a few days of notice.