 ARPremium,ExMod 2001-04
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON | When business models collide..... The telcos/cablecos want to maximize revenue as would Netflix through this medium of easier distribution model.
Would the telecoms be happy with a percent of Netflix's profit as a "levy"?
Rogers charges $7.99 for a HD movie purchased through it's on-demand service. NO WAY is it going to let Netflix get away with a $8.99/month flat rate for unlimited streaming. |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Maybe Maybe netflix can subsiduze the ISPs so they CAN offer unmetered billing? |
|
 Sr TechPremium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT
 ·PHONE POWER
| reply to AR
Re: When business models collide..... I agree, in a sense the telcos and cable providers also distribute TV as we all ready know. They are trying to kill Netflix as it has what I need in stead of paying for pricey plans from main providers. The only way they can drive people away from Netflix is to start initiating caps and other scrupulous ways of collecting more money in order to keep you on their plans. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to AR
said by AR:The telcos/cablecos want to maximize revenue as would Netflix through this medium of easier distribution model.
Would the telecoms be happy with a percent of Netflix's profit as a "levy"?
Rogers charges $7.99 for a HD movie purchased through it's on-demand service. NO WAY is it going to let Netflix get away with a $8.99/month flat rate for unlimited streaming.
Kind of arrogant of Netflix to think that their business plan is somehow morally superior to the cable companies business plans. They each are trying to maximize profits and are at conflicting purposes. The smart thing would be a compromise, but then the net neutrality hardliners would go nuts if Netflix decided to go that route by making a deal with the cable companies. |
|
 MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
kudos:1
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bright House
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to baineschile
Re: Maybe said by baineschile:Maybe netflix can subsiduze the ISPs so they CAN offer unmetered billing?
Why? Bandwidth at a flat rate is pennies per gigabyte in block purchases. And with peering agreements it works out to being next to free.
This is all simply ISP's trying to milk customers for more. Either because they have a competing product(which charges more), or because they have competing ISP that already pays transit costs, and want to pillage more out of them. |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe netflix can subsiduze the ISPs so they CAN offer unmetered billing?
Maybe the ISPs should quit pretending to sell internet and let people know the list of acceptable content they can access?
--
Say no to JAMS! |
|
| reply to Mashiki
said by Mashiki:And with peering agreements it works out to being next to free.
Really, next to free?
Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router?
How about a router linecard that has 4/8/16 10gig ports? Do you know how much those cost? (Hint: They aren't free.) Depending on the vendor being used, a singe port 100g linecard can be from $250k - $900k. And that is just one peering port. You'd obviously need more for bandwidth growth and redundancy.
Also, paying employees to install, upgrade, and maintain the devices isn't free either.
Maybe "next to free" means "$1 to a few million $" to you?
And sure, you can spend that money to add peering ports, but then you also may need to upgrade the transport links from your peering router to the rest of your network to make up for the shift in traffic. That's hardly "free" either.
Just because you don't agree with who wants who to pay for the bandwidth doesn't mean that you can use the argument that your opponent's network ports are "free." |
|
| All the thing you brought up goes into the category of system upgrades, and maintenance. which is pretty much paid for by customers.
What hes saying is for the actually bandwidth between the isp's are nearly free because nether side has to pay each other for the bandwidth. It's going to be the same for both sides (paying for the installation and upgrades), once the connection is setup, it'll pay for itself without these insane overages.
--
Artician LLC
Co-Founder
Artician Web Development Studios - »www.artician.net
Artician - Creative Network for Art, Graphic Design, & Photography - »www.artician.com |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: When business models collide..... ...and the customer is caught in the middle... Screw the customer! Long live the king! |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by jjeffeory:...and the customer is caught in the middle... Screw the customer! Long live the king!
You are going to pay no matter what. The fight is over how Netflix and the cable company are going to divide up the revenue. |
|
|
|
WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | reply to KnightAR
Re: Maybe When you upgrade a network you normally double the bandwidth capacity but you do not double the revenue. Most of the bandwidth sits idle. One CEO reported the demand from customers was doubling every year but revenues only increased by 3 to 5 %.
When communication equipment gets close to 100% they have to add equipment which is normally the same piece of equipment. That now means you now are only using 50% but your cost have doubled until you bring in more customers. If the current customers just use up that capacity with more downloads you don't get any more money.
If you started a taxi company and sold a flat rate service to a family but they added enough kids to require a second taxi your expenses have doubled but not your revenue. That is what the ISPs are doing with caps they are charging for the extra kids. Video has changed the equations all on the cost side the internet is no longer e-mail and web pages.
I look for bills to have 3 parts in the future like wireless. One for the connection, one for the speed, and one for the amount of usage in tiers like speed. You may want speed but low usage or low speed but a lot of usage or high speed and high usage. I don't download a lot and I am tired of paying for those that download more then 500 meg every month and pay the same price. |
|
MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
kudos:1 | 500 megs huh? Bet you're really hurting to know that the lastest and greatest service pack for Win7 weighed in at nearly 1GB. Whether you like it or not, welcome to the digital world. If you're not using much now, in 5 years you will be. |
|
MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Bright House
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to skuv
Well if you had a clue, you'd know that's hardware. Not bandwidth. Bandwidth is effectively free between ISP's, with either no transit costs, or a low peer exchange cost. So yes, bandwidth is free, or next to no cost.
Tip: I did work for an ISP in this area back in the late 90's, before the explosion of information. And even then the transit costs across the 2nd backbone we used when we hit capacity on our primary link was 4.1c/GB. Our primary had no cost outside of hardware and maintenance. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to skuv
said by skuv :said by Mashiki:And with peering agreements it works out to being next to free.
Really, next to free? Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router? How about a router linecard that has 4/8/16 10gig ports? Do you know how much those cost? (Hint: They aren't free.) Depending on the vendor being used, a singe port 100g linecard can be from $250k - $900k. And that is just one peering port. You'd obviously need more for bandwidth growth and redundancy. Also, paying employees to install, upgrade, and maintain the devices isn't free either. Maybe "next to free" means "$1 to a few million $" to you? And sure, you can spend that money to add peering ports, but then you also may need to upgrade the transport links from your peering router to the rest of your network to make up for the shift in traffic. That's hardly "free" either. Just because you don't agree with who wants who to pay for the bandwidth doesn't mean that you can use the argument that your opponent's network ports are "free." FYI those costs are the same if you never use your connection or if you use your connection 24/7. Either way the ISP has to pay for all the hardware and support.
Just because you use your connection more than other customer does not mean they should pay less than you.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Linklist
Re: When business models collide..... said by Linklist:said by AR:The telcos/cablecos want to maximize revenue as would Netflix through this medium of easier distribution model.
Would the telecoms be happy with a percent of Netflix's profit as a "levy"?
Rogers charges $7.99 for a HD movie purchased through it's on-demand service. NO WAY is it going to let Netflix get away with a $8.99/month flat rate for unlimited streaming.
Kind of arrogant of Netflix to think that their business plan is somehow morally superior to the cable companies business plans. They each are trying to maximize profits and are at conflicting purposes. The smart thing would be a compromise, but then the net neutrality hardliners would go nuts if Netflix decided to go that route by making a deal with the cable companies. Why do they have to make a deal with cable companies????
Netflix pays for their internet connections.
Netflix customers pay for their internet connections.
Why should cable companies get any money out of this????
ISP that are also cable companies are using caps to try and stop internet competition with their cable services, that is just BS.
The vast majority of ISPs have been unlimited for the last 15 years, why would we revert to pre 1995 and starting having capped internet???
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | reply to skuv
Re: Maybe said by skuv :Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router? As mentioned already- the ISP is going to need to pay for the equipment anyway - regardless if anyone uses it or not. The ONLY way your argument is valid is if they need to pay for increased capacity to support more load, but let's get into that:
Realistically speaking, if one hour of streaming is 1GB according to Netflix, let's assume an average user would stream an hour a day. So that's a "whopping" 30GB a month. 1GB / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = 12.13KByte/second on average. So by that logic a 100gig port can support over a million users on average. Yes- if you account for usage peaks and such it's probably more like half of that, but come on - 500k users. Even if the equipment costs $500k that's still only $1 per user one time cost - for a user who's paying something like $50 a month.
Even in the most pessimistic scenario the ISPs aren't exactly hurting here. It's all just a scheme to prevent competition and as such should be illegal. |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
·Callcentric
| reply to WhatNow
said by WhatNow: I look for bills to have 3 parts in the future like wireless. One for the connection, one for the speed, and one for the amount of usage in tiers like speed. You may want speed but low usage or low speed but a lot of usage or high speed and high usage. I don't download a lot and I am tired of paying for those that download more then 500 meg every month and pay the same price.
Not with my cable I can not. I have usage caps or will have them. they are being rolled out. They are high enough for my usage levels and I do have netflix. Sorry you only use your connection for email and boring dslreports. Probably stay away from any forums here that would use any bandwidth. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Vitelity VOIP
1 edit | reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:said by skuv :Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router? As mentioned already- the ISP is going to need to pay for the equipment anyway - regardless if anyone uses it or not. That argument works for 1x10Gig connection, but unfortunately that's not at all what we're talking about here. It's not like there is 1 massive router that makes up an ISPs Internet connection -- they're going to need to buy interfaces on anywhere from dozens to hundreds of devices because that traffic all has to go somewhere. Increases in usage mean upgrades in capacity at pretty much every layer of the network from the Internet border, through the core, out to the customer edge.
said by nitzan:Realistically speaking, if one hour of streaming is 1GB according to Netflix, let's assume an average user would stream an hour a day. So that's a "whopping" 30GB a month. 1GB / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = 12.13KByte/second on average. So by that logic a 100gig port can support over a million users on average. Yes- if you account for usage peaks and such it's probably more like half of that, but come on - 500k users. Even if the equipment costs $500k that's still only $1 per user one time cost - for a user who's paying something like $50 a month. We're talking about more than $500k -- by a lot. I swag'd some numbers just in relation to Comcast a few weeks ago: »Re: [Caps] the dreaded call - 1,817G
You are trying to apply 24 hour average numbers to real-time consumption. If Netflix needs 1.5mbps to stream video per feed, it doesn't matter if someone is watching 5 seconds or 5 hours of video, the network needs to provide 1.5mbps to that user for the service to work. Network scaling needs to be done according to concurrent network needs.
As someone who operates a VoIP service, it blows my mind that you're not accounting for concurrency.
said by nitzan:Even in the most pessimistic scenario the ISPs aren't exactly hurting here. It's all just a scheme to prevent competition and as such should be illegal. It's not that simple -- video streaming is something absolutely massive.
Netflix instant accounts for 20 percent of all non-mobile internet use during prime time in the United States, according to a new study.
Streaming media — real-time entertainment — accounts for 43% of peak period traffic in the U.S., according to Sandvine, which helps ISPs manage their networks and thus has access to buckets of information about usage patterns.
But Netflix alone accounts for nearly half of that between 8 and 10 p.m., and that usage comes from only 1.8 percent of the service’s subscribers. Source: »www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/···ith-use/
Netflix has 16 million total subscribers, so that means that about 288,000 folks streaming from Netflix are driving 20% of Internet bandwidth consumption on a nightly basis in the US. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to KnightAR
said by KnightAR:What hes saying is for the actually bandwidth between the isp's are nearly free because nether side has to pay each other for the bandwidth. That's because large ISPs build out their own transit networks and interconnect at every major exchange in the US. These networks choose not to charge each other settlement fees because there is a determination that for an end-to-end IP conversation passing between the networks each company is sharing a reasonable burden of cost. It isn't "free" - the costs are just internal.
Compared to taking a taxi, driving your car is also free. It's the same deal. |
|
| reply to nitzan
Except you are making a big mistake by calculating that 1GB over 24 hours. Peak of Netflix traffic comes around 8PM, and the network has to be built to handle the peak. So let's say 1GB comes in one hour. NOT spaced evenly over 24. Now you're at 277KB/s, much higher than 12.13KB/s you figured.
That's why they say Netflix is 20% of traffic 'at peak.' A tiny number of users is having a big impact, because they are synchronized. |
|
