3 ms·

I was surprised by how many people took the Credit Suisse analysis seriously (we peer heavily at justin.tv too).

by abstractbill 18y ago

krakensden 18y ago
You probably can't say, but just in case you can- what's the ballpark of your bandwidth costs?
- abstractbill 18y ago
  Sorry, you guessed right - all I can say is it's a lot less than it would be if we didn't do any peering.
skorgu 18y ago
Each time the traditional media butchers a technical story I'm astonished anew. And then I get a second round of surprise when everyone accepts it so uncritically because it was in a non-blog context.
volida 18y ago
I don't know about your costs, but you have seem to have something in common, you both exploit copyrighted content. Maybe soon enough you'll have a lawsit in common.
- volida 18y ago
  I expected down voting, so for those who of you who doubt what I said, here is a sample of some live evidence: http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search
  - smanek 18y ago
    You are wrong. Youtube/Justin.tv don't "exploit copyright content." The law explicitly allows what they do. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act creates a safe harbor for online service providers. It specifically says that those sort of sites are not liable for infringement as long as they take down content at the copyright holder's request (i.e., when the copyright holder issues a DMCA takedown notice). There are a lot of details which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L.... Youtube/Justin have just as much right to host user uploaded content as copyright holders do to enforce their rights.
    - volida 18y ago
      4. I am well aware of the DCMA thank you very much.
      - smanek 18y ago
        Then you should know the law allows everything Youtube/Justin do and that your complaint has no validity.
        volida 18y ago
        I didn't state a complain. I reffered to a fact. Personally, I am happy YouTube exists
  - Dilpil 18y ago
    The down votes do not signify disagreement with the assertion. They signify that the direction you are choosing to take the discussion in with the comment is inappropriate for this situation.
    - volida 18y ago
      1. I am in this forum since it's beggining. You think I don't know what is appropriate or what is going to be down voted? 2. Your percepetion that I want to pollute the discussion would be valid If only I have history of doing that. i. define "inappropriate" and why/how this "situation" is affected. Since, when comments must allign with one scope? ii. according to your "way" I could say the parent comment concerning "justin.tv bandwidth costs" has nothing to do with this thread, as it's essentially abstract and it contributes nothing. 3. Whoever is annoyed for a fact to be mentioned then it's not my problem.
      - likpok 18y ago
        1. I am in this forum since it's beggining. You think I don't know what is appropriate or what is going to be down voted? In fact, the discussion was about the original article, and bandwidth costs, not the possibility of Youtube/justin.tv having copyrighted content on them. Were this a discussion of copyright, people would probably not feel that your assertions were off-base.
        deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
        volida 18y ago
        The comment from abstractbill reffered to Credit Suisse report which was about how the analysts have estimated Google's YouTube may lose $470M in 2009 and more in the future. By reffering to that report, it means his comment reffered to justin.tv costs and not on how they do it. Meaning that it's not so expensive according to their experience. So, If I am going to reply to that comment it means I am going to talk about money. If I am going to talk about money I have every right to comment that they are profiting from content owned by someone else, WHICH has nothing to do if its legitimate or not. My comment was as much relevant as the parent comment I replied to. As much for justin.tv, they should better follow YouTube strategy to look broke, because if people who own that content know they are actually profitable someone will knock their door.
albertsun 18y ago
Wasn't one of the big reasons behind the TeliaSonera vs Cogent spat a little while ago the large difference in traffic going one away across the peering agreement versus the other way and that Cogent wanted Telia to pay more for that difference? I don't know what the ratio of data uploaded to YouTube versus downloaded is in comparison to Justin.tv or other big bandwidth heavy sites, but I would guess that Google still has to pay quite a hefty price for these peering agreements. ISPs after all don't just want more traffic across their network for the sake of it.
jganetsk 18y ago
Is any of your peering with Tier 1s?

I was surprised by how many people took the Credit Suisse analysis seriously (we peer heavily at justin.tv too).

krakensden 18y ago

You probably can't say, but just in case you can- what's the ballpark of your bandwidth costs?

abstractbill 18y ago
Sorry, you guessed right - all I can say is it's a lot less than it would be if we didn't do any peering.

skorgu 18y ago

Each time the traditional media butchers a technical story I'm astonished anew. And then I get a second round of surprise when everyone accepts it so uncritically because it was in a non-blog context.

volida 18y ago

I don't know about your costs, but you have seem to have something in common, you both exploit copyrighted content. Maybe soon enough you'll have a lawsit in common.

volida 18y ago
I expected down voting, so for those who of you who doubt what I said, here is a sample of some live evidence: http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search
- smanek 18y ago
  You are wrong. Youtube/Justin.tv don't "exploit copyright content." The law explicitly allows what they do. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act creates a safe harbor for online service providers. It specifically says that those sort of sites are not liable for infringement as long as they take down content at the copyright holder's request (i.e., when the copyright holder issues a DMCA takedown notice). There are a lot of details which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L.... Youtube/Justin have just as much right to host user uploaded content as copyright holders do to enforce their rights.
  - volida 18y ago
    4. I am well aware of the DCMA thank you very much.
    - smanek 18y ago
      Then you should know the law allows everything Youtube/Justin do and that your complaint has no validity.
      - volida 18y ago
        I didn't state a complain. I reffered to a fact. Personally, I am happy YouTube exists
- Dilpil 18y ago
  The down votes do not signify disagreement with the assertion. They signify that the direction you are choosing to take the discussion in with the comment is inappropriate for this situation.
  - volida 18y ago
    1. I am in this forum since it's beggining. You think I don't know what is appropriate or what is going to be down voted? 2. Your percepetion that I want to pollute the discussion would be valid If only I have history of doing that. i. define "inappropriate" and why/how this "situation" is affected. Since, when comments must allign with one scope? ii. according to your "way" I could say the parent comment concerning "justin.tv bandwidth costs" has nothing to do with this thread, as it's essentially abstract and it contributes nothing. 3. Whoever is annoyed for a fact to be mentioned then it's not my problem.
    - likpok 18y ago
      1. I am in this forum since it's beggining. You think I don't know what is appropriate or what is going to be down voted? In fact, the discussion was about the original article, and bandwidth costs, not the possibility of Youtube/justin.tv having copyrighted content on them. Were this a discussion of copyright, people would probably not feel that your assertions were off-base.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - volida 18y ago
        The comment from abstractbill reffered to Credit Suisse report which was about how the analysts have estimated Google's YouTube may lose $470M in 2009 and more in the future. By reffering to that report, it means his comment reffered to justin.tv costs and not on how they do it. Meaning that it's not so expensive according to their experience. So, If I am going to reply to that comment it means I am going to talk about money. If I am going to talk about money I have every right to comment that they are profiting from content owned by someone else, WHICH has nothing to do if its legitimate or not. My comment was as much relevant as the parent comment I replied to. As much for justin.tv, they should better follow YouTube strategy to look broke, because if people who own that content know they are actually profitable someone will knock their door.

albertsun 18y ago

Wasn't one of the big reasons behind the TeliaSonera vs Cogent spat a little while ago the large difference in traffic going one away across the peering agreement versus the other way and that Cogent wanted Telia to pay more for that difference? I don't know what the ratio of data uploaded to YouTube versus downloaded is in comparison to Justin.tv or other big bandwidth heavy sites, but I would guess that Google still has to pay quite a hefty price for these peering agreements. ISPs after all don't just want more traffic across their network for the sake of it.

jganetsk 18y ago

Is any of your peering with Tier 1s?