Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

He's not concerned about his bandwidth costs, but about the bandwidth costs (in both money and time) to the users.


sort by: page size:

Bandwidth costs are not really the major cost of providing content.

That's about $4000/month in bandwidth costs, assuming retail pricing.

FYI he is bragging, not complaining. There are a dozen ways to reduce or eliminate this problem.


The bandwidth and infrastructure is not where the costs are.

You're possibly double counting the bandwidth costs if he's also using the connection for his workstations.

> Sure, bandwidth is cheap

Indeed it is, especially when you consider their fees and costs. Based on the information in the article their monthly free cash flow is $2150, so they certainly can afford their current bandwidth usage be it at $9 or $30 per Mbps without playing silly games and spying on their users.


What about bandwidth costs?

Bandwidth costs do exceed $100, but that's not a factor.

the cost of the bandwidth

I'm not concerned about bandwidth costs. I'm concerned about support costs. People who use an API have an annoying habit of calling and submitting support tickets for that API.

Bandwidth is cheap.

Bandwidth is not cheap for many of us.

He used hundreds of hours of his time. What makes you think he would've refrained from paying a few extra dollars for the bandwidth?

Bandwidth is only expensive when you're a small consumer, or when you buy at places like AWS.

It's really the bandwidth that'll cost you :-)

I’m not denying that using a lot of bandwidth is a valid thing to do. My point is that heavy users must pay more than casual users.

Even if it is, bandwidth isn't particularly cheap.

Bandwidth has a physical cost

Without reading the article, which is probably addressing a much more sensible point than the title would have us believe: Coz bandwidth costs money?

Yeah but my application is consumer focused and bandwidth is a real cost.
next

Legal | privacy