Unlimited Bandwidth: The Alternative to AWS S3

For over a decade, AWS S3 + CloudFront has been the default answer for hosting static sites and assets. It is powerful, ubiquitous, and for high-traffic projects, however it can be extremely expensive.

If you host a popular static site, media-heavy application, or public dataset, you pay a "Success Tax". The more popular you become, the more AWS charges you for egress (bandwidth).

Stop letting egress fees dictate your roadmap.

Filebase offers a $500/month Unlimited Plan that provides 25 TB of Object Storage with Unlimited Bandwidth.

For static site hosting, this isn't just a savings; it is a paradigm shift.

The AWS Trap: Engineered Complexity

Hosting a static site on AWS is like commuting in a tank. It’s powerful, expensive, and unnecessary for the job. You are using enterprise-grade, highly configurable infrastructure just to serve HTML, CSS, images, and videos.

But the real pain is the pricing model. AWS charges you for every gigabyte that leaves their network.

The Math: AWS S3 + CloudFront vs. Filebase

Let’s compare the costs for a successful static site or media project serving 10 TB of traffic per month with 1 TB of stored assets.

The AWS Bill

• Storage (1 TB): ~$23/mo (S3 Standard)
• Bandwidth (10 TB): ~$850/mo (CloudFront @ ~$0.085/GB)
• Request Fees: ~$20 - $50 (GET/PUT requests)
• Total: ~$900+ per month

Note: If you spike to 50 TB, that bill jumps to $4,000+. You are paying a premium for complexity you don't need.

The Filebase Bill

• Storage (25 TB Included): $0 (Included in plan)
• Bandwidth (Unlimited): $0 (Included in plan)
• Request Fees: $0 (Included in plan)
• Total: $500 per month

The Savings: $400+ per month immediately. If you scale to 50 TB or 100 TB, your savings grow to 90%+.

Break-Even Analysis

At $0.085 - $0.09 per GB, AWS becomes more expensive than Filebase once you exceed roughly 5.5 TB of bandwidth per month.

If your site pushes more than 5.5 TB, AWS is actively punishing your growth.

Why AWS is "Overkill" for Static Sites

Beyond price, there is the issue of complexity.

Setting up a robust static site on AWS requires:

1. Creating an S3 Bucket.
2. Configuring Bucket Policies and Permissions (easy to mess up).
3. Setting up a CloudFront Distribution.
4. Managing SSL Certificates via ACM.
5. Configuring Cache Invalidation logic.
6. Setting up Route53 DNS.

Meet Filebase Sites. The workflow is:

1. Drag and drop your folder (or deploy via CLI/GitHub).
2. Map your custom domain.
3. Done.

We handle the SSL, the global CDN (via Dedicated Gateways), and the replication automatically.

The "Redundancy" Argument: Business Continuity

Everyone knows that us-east-1 has a bad day at least once a year. When AWS has an outage, half the internet goes down.

Concentration Risk is a real threat to your revenue. If your business relies on steering traffic to landing pages, documentation, or media assets, an AWS outage means zero revenue.

Filebase utilizes IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) under the hood. This means:

1. Decentralized Resilience: Your content isn't just on one server; it is pinned across a decentralized network.
2. Public by Default: Ideal for public static sites and media. (Note: This plan is for public data, not private backends).
3. Failover Strategy: Even if you love AWS, smart teams use Filebase as a hot mirror. If S3 goes down, you can instantly route traffic to your Filebase bucket, keeping your business online.

Conclusion: Stop Overpaying for Static Hosting

If you are paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a month just to send data to your users, you are using the wrong tool for the job.

AWS S3 is for computing. Filebase is for distribution.

Switch to the $500 Unlimited Plan. Get 25 TB of storage and Unlimited Bandwidth. Stop worrying about the meter running.

Deploy your site on Filebase today.
No long-term contracts. Cancel anytime.