Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Because we’re peered with Backblaxe (as well as AWS). There’s a fixed cost of setting up those peering arrangements, but, once in place, there’s no incremental cost. That’s why we have similar agreements to Backblaze in place with Google, Microsoft, IBM, Digital Ocean, etc. It’s pretty shameful, actually, that AWS has so far refused. When using Cloudflare, they don’t pay for the bandwidth, and we don’t pay for the Bandwidth, so why are customers paying for the bandwidth. Amazon pretends to be customer-focused. This is a clear example where they’re not.

Maybe Amazon is afraid of sabotaging Cloudfront and losing revenue coming from outgoing data transfers?

Thank you for clarifying. If I were to use a Google cloud service from a Cloudflare Worker would there be no bandwidth charges? That would change everything for us.

Bandwidth between GCP and Cloudflare isn't free, unlike with Backblaze, but the cost is reduced.


as AWS is primary cash cow for Amazon I doubt they would ever change that. Bandwidth fees are a key profit maker for them on the other hand AWS's crazy bandwidth pricing is prob. pretty beneficial to driving customers towards you guys.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact