FWIW many of the ads on youtube aren't necessarily related to youtube itself.
You can setup your channel w/ads that go to your pocket so long as it's all your own original content.
Youtube has also become pretty advanced at recognizing and tagging material that belongs to 3rd parties (movie clips, songs, etc.)... sometimes this results in removing the video from visibility regionally or even world-wide, sometimes it results in a copyright notice to your account, sometimes it results in the material being tagged in the info as belonging to that party and ads being added to it -- ads whose revenue presumably go to the copyright holder.
You can setup the same kind of stuff on places like blogger (Google) and wordpress - ads aren't paying for hosting services or other logistics/overhead (in fact there is no cost to the blogger). They're going to that content provider's pocket.
I think this is largely what you're seeing. A change in philosophy from amateur content providers deciding that their time and effort is worth compensation.
It is and isn't, and this gets into a rather complicated debate on who is even responsible for paying for it, Tier1 networks, peering agreements, etc. Such a statement risks seriously undermining network capabilities that are often limited for strictly selfish reasons. Google's own ISP has done a pretty good job of demonstrating how greedy and underhanded the ISP market has become. Both by providing far superior services for far cheaper and highlighting how ISPs have attempted to legislate Google out of markets by forming cartels.
Suffice to say, it's cheaper than people would assume otherwise Netflix wouldn't be very successful (and there's a whole peering brawl with ISPs trying to cash in on that too). The limitations and bandwidth throttling have more to do with entities wanting to play politics, exert control, etc. than anything else.
You can setup your channel w/ads that go to your pocket so long as it's all your own original content.
Youtube has also become pretty advanced at recognizing and tagging material that belongs to 3rd parties (movie clips, songs, etc.)... sometimes this results in removing the video from visibility regionally or even world-wide, sometimes it results in a copyright notice to your account, sometimes it results in the material being tagged in the info as belonging to that party and ads being added to it -- ads whose revenue presumably go to the copyright holder.
You can setup the same kind of stuff on places like blogger (Google) and wordpress - ads aren't paying for hosting services or other logistics/overhead (in fact there is no cost to the blogger). They're going to that content provider's pocket.
I think this is largely what you're seeing. A change in philosophy from amateur content providers deciding that their time and effort is worth compensation.
It is and isn't, and this gets into a rather complicated debate on who is even responsible for paying for it, Tier1 networks, peering agreements, etc. Such a statement risks seriously undermining network capabilities that are often limited for strictly selfish reasons. Google's own ISP has done a pretty good job of demonstrating how greedy and underhanded the ISP market has become. Both by providing far superior services for far cheaper and highlighting how ISPs have attempted to legislate Google out of markets by forming cartels.
Suffice to say, it's cheaper than people would assume otherwise Netflix wouldn't be very successful (and there's a whole peering brawl with ISPs trying to cash in on that too). The limitations and bandwidth throttling have more to do with entities wanting to play politics, exert control, etc. than anything else.
Upvote
0
