Re:Launch HN: Peer5 (YC W17) – Serverless CDN
by jpk on Friday January 27, 2017 @03:56PM
(#13502588)
Use some other poor rube's bandwidth; sell it as your own. Brilliant!
Re:Launch HN: Peer5 (YC W17) – Serverless CDN
by detaro on Friday January 27, 2017 @03:37PM
(#13502444)
Presumably the more traffic the P2P stuff serves, the more value it brings you (in saved CDN costs), and of course Peer5 would like to be paid as much as possible of that. Being paid by the same measure the thing you are replacing is commonly billed by seems sensible.
Re:Launch HN: Peer5 (YC W17) – Serverless CDN
by einfach on Friday January 27, 2017 @02:44PM
(#13502044)
I was going to ask the same thing. The Accounts & Billing FAQ does seem to concur that you pay for P2P delivery:
> A: For the pay-per-Gigabyte tiers, Peer5 charges you at the end of the month based on the agreed upon price and actual amount of data delivered through our P2P CDN during the period. For the Pro tier, Peer5 bills the flat rate at the beginning of the month. For the free, Starter tier, there is no billing, but we do cap your P2P delivery at 1 TB per month.
Re:Launch HN: Peer5 (YC W17) – Serverless CDN
by shacharz on Friday January 27, 2017 @03:18PM
(#13502279)
The point is that there's no double billing, http traffic is being billed by your existing CDN. P2P traffic is billed by us.
Re:Launch HN: Peer5 (YC W17) – Serverless CDN
by whadar on Friday January 27, 2017 @03:17PM
(#13502276)
The idea is that you're not double taxed. If you're using a CDN already like Akamai for instance, you wouldn't pay Peer5 for the HTTP bytes. Only Akamai would charge you for that.
Re:Launch HN: Peer5 (YC W17) – Serverless CDN
by koolba on Friday January 27, 2017 @03:28PM
(#13502363)
But why bill based on the bandwidth at all? Is it just a matter of being easy to understand and will equate to more than request based billing?
With a P2P network the bandwidth isn't being paid for anyway as you're using the end user's outbound connections. The tech behind it does sound interesting but it sounds more like a library than a metered service.
> Only data delivered via P2P counts against your plan.
Am I misunderstanding this or is that statement backwards?
Isn't the point of a P2P network to get the distributed network benefits of your user base and if so why would I pay for that versus the data that's coming directly off the primary channel?