You have to read the fine print though. Amazon CloudFront, while expensive, is designed for delivering content globally.

Take 100TB for example (the first result in that Google Search)

    d. We strive to maintain a high level of service, and a lot of customers
       depend on our high standards of quality. As such, we will not provide
       Services to those that are using our Services for:
    
    vii. Using the Services for a content delivery network or content distribution
         network (CDN). An authorized CDN network offered through 100TB is
         accepted. Special requests to use the Services to run an unauthorized
         CDN network may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Failure to comply
         with this policy will result in termination of this TOS, and you will
         not receive a refund of the Fees.

If you look into the TOS even more, they basically disallow anything that's bandwidth intensive.

S3 and Cloudfront are targeted at the dabbler, who will likely only be serving a GB or two per month, in which case S3 and Cloudfront would be pennies with no long term commitment. Once you move beyond that and are storing and serving more than 1 TB, you'd be better off with a monthly commitment.

Hetzner is around $200 for 100TB with 1gbit.

He mentioned only one which was Amazon. It is expensive but it's doing more than serving 100tb. The S3 provides redundancy and cloud front provides edge delivery.

Getting a server somewhere that has 100tb of outgoing is something different.

None of the cheaper options I see there are comparable services. What danso was pointing out was that the service cloudfront was wanting $3000 costs $8000 elsewhere, it is not an unreasonable price. Getting maybe bandwidth from a sketchy dedicated server provider is not the same service as a content delivery network.