3 ms·
OK, here goes some back-of-the envelope math (risky business in this group, so looking forward to hearing what I'm doing wrong..). Where I have made assumptions
by tomsaffell 18y ago
OK, here goes some back-of-the envelope math (risky business in this group, so looking forward to hearing what I'm doing wrong..). Where I have made assumptions, I have erred on the side of 'expensive', i.e. this should be an upper bound estimate:
75,000,000,000 streams/year
400 kbps (average bw)
average stream length: 300 s (stream length, not video length, highball estimate)
-> BW/year = 1.13e9 GB/year
0.1 $/GB (BW cost, based on AWS S3 prices, again a highball)
-> BW cost ~= $113m / year
Only 1/3 of the estimated amount, and I'm not taking account of any clever stuff YT do to lower the costs. What gives? Is this a peak BW issue?
- axod 18y ago>> 0.1 $/GB (BW cost, based on AWS S3 prices, again a highball) I'd say that's insanely high. I've heard for large amounts of traffic you can get 1TB for $8 - instead of $100.
- abstractbill 18y agoAgreed, but tomsaffell's point is that even with these insanely high assumptions, the cost is still a lot lower than the number from the article.
- axod 18y agoRight. Perhaps the article is assuming the cost of bandwidth is the same cost you pay for SMS or something ;)