21–30 of 113 posts
If this move were really about acting in customers' best interests, they would reduce the fees for everyone. Doing this only for departing customers feels performative.
Looks like it's a response to the recent cloud services market investigation by the CMA [1]. Which highlighted "Egress fees harm competition by creating barriers to switching and multi-cloud leading to cloud service providers entrenching their position" [2]. It's also interesting that they are calling out problems with software licensing, as that is another thing the CMA is investigating in their cloud market review.…
I read through a couple of these responses to the CMA by MS, Google and AWS and their smaller competitors as expected the hyperscalers refuse to acknowledge that the free ingress and expensive egress is a lock-in mechanism, and their smaller competitors complain bitterly about this the hyperscalers say they have to charge egress fees to pay for the costs in building their networks, but for some reason doesn't apply t…
The industry standard 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.
I still feel that the egress fees charged by the big 3 are way too high.
Getting ahead of antitrust I see. Big tech has gotten so big that we will now see this peace meal stuff being done to appease regulators to stave off any major action.
Google Cloud has ~10% market share; I don't think this is an antitrust avoidance play. More likely, it's removing a concern companies might have with bringing workloads onto a relatively smaller player. Especially one that has a history of discontinuing products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like they're trying to technically address EU regulators' concerns without providing any real value to customers. In real life it's probably extremely unusual for any company to altogether cancel their Google Cloud contract. More likely is the scenario where you move the bulk of your cloud usage to a new provider, but still have various straggler infrastructure on the old one, which is not worth the effort to…
Yep, for a sufficiently large account, this strikes me as an offer they know will never be taken. "Migrating" typically means "stopping $XXX,XXX spend per month" not "completely ceasing use of all GCE services." They know this and this is mainly marketing, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read through a couple of these responses to the CMA by MS, Google and AWS and their smaller competitors as expected the hyperscalers refuse to acknowledge that the free ingress and expensive egress is a lock-in mechanism, and their smaller competitors complain bitterly about this the hyperscalers say they have to charge egress fees to pay for the costs in building their networks, but for some reason doesn't apply t…
>but for some reason doesn't apply to ingress (which they're silent on) The industry standard 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.
Getting ahead of antitrust I see. Big tech has gotten so big that we will now see this peace meal stuff being done to appease regulators to stave off any major action.
*piecemeal
Looks like it's a response to the recent cloud services market investigation by the CMA [1]. Which highlighted "Egress fees harm competition by creating barriers to switching and multi-cloud leading to cloud service providers entrenching their position" [2]. It's also interesting that they are calling out problems with software licensing, as that is another thing the CMA is investigating in their cloud market review.…
I read through a couple of these responses to the CMA by MS, Google and AWS and their smaller competitors as expected the hyperscalers refuse to acknowledge that the free ingress and expensive egress is a lock-in mechanism, and their smaller competitors complain bitterly about this the hyperscalers say they have to charge egress fees to pay for the costs in building their networks, but for some reason doesn't apply t…
This doesn’t pass the red face test IMO. The hyperscaler networks are indeed very expensive, but that’s because they need to provide non-blocking or near non-blocking performance within the availability zone, and the clouds don’t charge for this service.
The Internet egress part ought to be straightforward on top of this: plug as much bandwidth worth of connections into the aforementioned extremely fancy internal network. Configure routes accordingly.
It’s worth noting that the big clouds will sell you private links to your own facilities, and they charge for these links (which makes sense), but then they charge you for the traffic you send from inside the cloud to these links, which is absurd since they don’t charge for comparable traffic from inside the cloud to other systems in the same AZ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but for some reason doesn't apply to ingress (which they're silent on) The industry standard 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.
I accept there's some level of cost, but the prices are so high it's hard to describe it as anything other than gouging to prevent competition
I've seen this at other providers. We did a competitive pricing exercise at my last company, and our overall cost went down, but the mechanism was per hosts costs went down significantly and egress costs went up significantly, and the per host cost decrease outweighed the egress cost increase.
It still doesn't make sense to charge for ingress, because everybody knows that should be free, unless you're a residential ISP.