News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:YouTube’s Bandwidth Bill Is Low by kierank on Friday October 16, 2009 @05:57PM (#886267)
From my experiences, if we assume that Youtube's bandwidth costs are similar to what Akamai charges for an extremely large video site

There's an "Akamai markup" which is a well known thing that Akamai charge for the heritage (somewhat analogous with the so-called "Mac-tax" except the Akamai "tax" is agreed to exist). A better comparison would be CDN pricing for Limelight or CDNetworks, the other two big players. It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of peering contracts for major carriers (but not necessarily Tier 1 - for example BT, Telefonica etc) depend on having a backbone - Akamai doesn't have a backbone, their backbone is the internet.

Also Google only do HTTP, so no Flash RTMP or Microsoft streaming which you effectively subsidise with an http product from a CDN.

Re:YouTube’s Bandwidth Bill Is Low by camwest on Friday October 16, 2009 @06:19PM (#886290)
They actually don't use HTTP, they use RTMP, try it yourself: Load up a Youtube video and scrub to the middle of the video. It will load to that very point even if it hasn't buffered that far yet.
Re:YouTube’s Bandwidth Bill Is Low by kierank on Friday October 16, 2009 @06:24PM (#886302)
They use HTTP with an addition in their servers similar to this plugin: http://h264.code-shop.com/trac to do HTTP scrubbing.

Google also used Akamai for its Google Live broadcast which indicated that their network couldn't do RTMP (at the time).