
YouTube costs Google $2 million per day - zeedotme
http://www.inquisitr.com/24740/youtube-costs-google-2-million-per-day/
======
kierank
Every other week these figures appear and every time on HN they are debunked.

The Credit Suisse analyst's report has little idea about how delivering large
amounts of data on the net works. See my previous comments on this story for
more information.

~~~
kqr2
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=546303>

------
mdasen
Based on Credit Suisse's bandwidth cost estimate, it seems like YouTube would
have to be pushing more than 10PB per day (petabytes). That's assuming a
$0.10/GB bandwidth cost. Now, I'm sure that Google is getting a lower
bandwidth cost than I can get on a dedicated server as just me with my credit
card.

So, I think it's safe to assume from those numbers that Google's pushing a few
dozen petabytes from YouTube every day. That's a lot of data.

------
blhack
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why is google paying for bandwidth at
all?

Why doesn't google own their own bandwidth provider? Didn't they buy up a
bunch of dark fiber a while ago?

Lease it to the providers and use that to subsidize their own bandwidth. Or am
I totally missing the point?

~~~
chrisbolt
They're probably already doing settlement-free peering with various ISPs due
to their sheer volume of data transfer, which would mean that they aren't
paying for all of the bandwidth they're using. Otherwise, the ISPs they're
peering with would have to pay someone else for the bandwidth to use YouTube.

------
dspeyer
There was a big media frenzy back when Google first announced its edge-caches
physically located in ISP server rooms:
[http://techliberation.com/2008/12/16/edge-caching-vs-
prefere...](http://techliberation.com/2008/12/16/edge-caching-vs-preferential-
treatment/) [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Wall-Street-
Journals-...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Wall-Street-Journals-
Google-Hatchet-Job-99684)
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html>
[http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-
neutralit...](http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-
and-benefits-of-caching.html)

Why has everyone forgotten?

------
lurkinggrue
Yes, but that is $2 million in internet dollars.

------
zandorg
Eric Schmidt was talking about how 'micropayments' were the solution. Maybe
people would pay a couple cents per video.

~~~
blhack
Would you?

For me, youtube has largely replaced pirating music as a means for discovering
bands (this is why it angers me so much when videos get muted). The cost for
me to check out a band I might be interested in is ~$0.00.

If they started charging me for this, I would either want something that I got
to keep, or I would start pirating again.

~~~
zandorg
But music videos are promotional, meaning the _label_ would pay YouTube/Google
for the cost of distribution. You don't get CD quality on YouTube (and I
actively buy CDs because they sound better to me than MP3).

I mean TV shows, lectures and science programs - video with educational value.

------
oldgregg
I'm guessing they can hold out long enough for flash p2p penetration.

------
Zarathu
Cool! So, what else is new?

Facebook isn't making any money?!

