It would be interesting to see what they tried to bill them. I can push out 70TB for about $700 right now (through our 11 PoP anycast network). AWS S3 would have cost $5,717.85 according to their calculator. My guess is the bill is somewhere in the middle.<p>If you don't need a fancy anycast network, you can buy a 1GbE pipe from Hurricane Electric for about $400/mo and push 192TB/mo through it. Actually they include that when you get their $400/mo server cabinets in the bay area. Probably not the best option ever, but I don't think S3 is 14.29x better than it. Dedicated server providers like OVH might be okay with it too, probably ask them first. But if you had 2-4 servers and round-robined them my guess is you would be fine. You could get one server in Europe and one in NA and GeoDNS them and get probably-good-enough close to what an anycast network can do. For ~$200/mo. Not too bad.<p>I've given my rant a million times so I won't do it again, but "The Cloud" heavily upcharges on bandwidth. Or they tell you it's "unlimited" (a word I've learned through experience to hate) then tell you "except for the kind of stuff you're doing" and send a bill or shut you down. If you've got to ship a ton of bandwidth, you should at least look into the alternatives.<p>If you really want to go future tech, look into something like IPFS (<a href="https://ipfs.io" rel="nofollow">https://ipfs.io</a>) - it was built for stuff like this and it's going to make a real dent in transit costs for heavy data sets, CDNs, package distribution and the like. I absolutely cannot wait for the distributed web.