 | | no comment necessary analysis was spot on. telcos will trump over the top providers such as netflix, as telcos own the most important piece of the value chain - the conduit. | |
|
 |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·SureWest Internet
| Re: no comment necessary said by misterjarret :analysis was spot on. telcos will trump over the top providers such as netflix, as telcos own the most important piece of the value chain - the conduit.
That, and the Comcasts of the world will not let their Pay tv model be trumped by the Netflix's of the world. They will squeeze that pipe and only jack diddly s--- will come out. Netflix is delusional to think otherwise.
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!
| |
|
| | | Not if contect companies make their own conduits. I think it's time for them to at least look at the possibility of going wireless. Strike deals with the wireless providers to deliever Netflix to your phone or a CDMA/UTMS/LTE settop box.
When my family and I are on the road, I tether my ATT phone to my laptop and we watch netflix if we have a strong enough 3g signal. That's more common than not due to the locations we tend to go and many times my phone is faster than the hotel's Wifi(at least fo rnetflix anyway, packet shaping maybe). | |
|
| | | Comcast needs to ask themselves why people use Netflix. Because your poor excuse of an ondemand library sucks. | |
|
| | | | Re: no comment necessary said by Geminimind:Comcast needs to ask themselves why people use Netflix. Because your poor excuse of an ondemand library sucks.
People use Neflix because the prices of VOD are a huge rip-off... for the price of 2 VOD movies you can get a month of Netflix. Duh.... | |
|
| | | | | Re: no comment necessary Yep and you get a bigger library of programming | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| What are they smoking? At 1.5 Mbps one hour of video is 675 MB. On Verizon's 10GB, $80 plan that works out to $5.40 in bandwidth costs. A full movie at 1.5 Mbps (120 minutes, let's say) would cost more than in-flight pay-per-view!
At $1 per GB we're talking about much more reasonable numbers as far as cost per streamed movie goes, but you're still better off swinging by the nearest Redbox (discounting gas costs) if you're going to watch a longer flick and your connection is in overage mode.
If you look in the wireless ISP forum, everyone over there is freaking out about how Netflix streaming is going to demolish their bandwidth and network infrastructure, because they're paying $300+ per megabit to get 'net access out to these places. The result may be that those WISPs will raise prices or implement caps because the cost of delivering ISP service with no caps and standard usage patterns just want way up :/
This is why a net-neutral, inexpensive middle mile is CRUCIAL to making stuff like Netflix et al work. Especially since everyone is likely to be watching Netflix at around the same time of day, pushing peak load to new highs... | |
|
| | | Re: What are they smoking? NetFlix would have a better run at this if they started trying to partner with ISPs and others- especially in the state. They could by-pass a lot of CDN deals by doing that. | |
|
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: What are they smoking? Sure, bring on additional ESPN 360-like deals. No thank you. Or are you referring to utilizing each ISP an a CDN, hence having to negotiate several hundred deals opposed to a couple that they do now? That will likely drive up Netflix's costs even more than content distribution rights already have. Eventually ISPs will implement, and enforce, usage caps to minimize the impacts of services like Netflix. Consumer costs will rise and everyone in forums like this will complain about greedy ISPs and how they shouldn't offer services they can't provide. | |
|
| | | | | Re: What are they smoking? no its partner with the ISPs, especially like indie ISPs and offer them a TV product. read below and you'd understand instead of claiming another ESPN 360 deal. and by the way---It's not a bad deal. | |
|
| | | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: What are they smoking? said by hottboiinnc:no its partner with the ISPs, especially like indie ISPs and offer them a TV product. read below and you'd understand instead of claiming another ESPN 360 deal. and by the way---It's not a bad deal.
You do realize that ESPN3 still counts against you cap with Comcast and Charter even though ESPN has deals with them. | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by hottboiinnc:NetFlix would have a better run at this if they started trying to partner with ISPs and others- rofl! what isp doesn't do video these days and thats what caps are all about!
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $25? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
|
|  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by iansltx:This is why a net-neutral, inexpensive middle mile is CRUCIAL to making stuff like Netflix et al work
"Middle mile" fiber is dirt cheap these days, its the "last mile" that is more expensive. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: What are they smoking? If you have fiber in a area, yes. If not then no. | |
|
| | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: What are they smoking? said by iansltx:If you have fiber in a area, yes. If not then no.
There is a glut of backbone or "middle mile" fiber available in many areas, even in rural locations. That has never really been the problem (at least not for the past 10 years), and it wont likely ever be. The issue has been getting from the fiber interconnection points to the homes, and middle mile fiber has nothing to do with that. Last mile fiber is the challenge most ISP's face when looking to build out new networks.
--
"No you won't" -The American people to President Obama (11/2/2010)
| |
|
| | | | | | Re: What are they smoking? Most people don't realize that part of the dot-bomb growth in the late 90's was the installation of thousands of miles of dark fiber. Between L3, Qwest and a dozen others there is so much long and medium haul fiber in the ground right now that they might never need to install it again. I don't think L3 has even lit (powered up) 1/3 of the fiber they have in the ground right now.
There's a huge glut of capacity that was driven by the mythical "exaflood" and investors that were throwing money at anything associated with the internet. (plus good planning that knowing the digging was expensive so putting in dozens of fibers and only using a couple immediately was the norm) In fact the only thing driving prices are maintenance and bond payments on the carriers that didn't go bankrupt. Most of the long haul providers barely make money and I wouldn't be surprised if the economics are the same in the medium haul market. The key point here is that the only thing driving prices is maintenance and bond payments. More traffic means maintenance costs spread over more data meaning prices are constantly going down. Fiber prices are dirt cheap, I remember when a DS3 cost $50K a month. The only thing limiting consumers right now is last mile. Once the last mile can handle it there is plenty of capacity in the long haul market. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: What are they smoking? Your right, there is plenty of fiber in the ground... Good luck tying in to it. I have 8 1.5" ducts that run 10 blocks away from my main PoP. They are dark, and it would be great to get a gig or two for cheap. The $100k they'd want to "tap" in to it and set a station is a bit more then we can handle. Oh, and the $20k to string the fiber to me.
You have got to be kidding it's the last mile holding things up. | |
|
| | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: What are they smoking? said by gunther_01:I have 8 1.5" ducts that run 10 blocks away from my main PoP. They are dark, and it would be great to get a gig or two for cheap.
10 blocks is considered a last mile connection. | |
|
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| "Fiber is dirt cheap" - How cheap are you thinking? If people want to be able to support Netflix my estimate is that bandwidth will need to be in the $15 per megabit range if you're buying a capped pipe, $20-$25 on 95th percentile.
Also, the VAST majority of the fiber you're talking about is run between major interconnection points (Dallas, LA, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Ashburn) with another significant percentage running to big towns that aren't IXPs (San Antonio, Austin, Salt Lake City, Washington DC). Once you get beyond those big cities you end up with at most three fiber providers (ILEC, CLEC like Level3 or someone else, cableco) and in some cases one or more of those won't sell you fiber (try getting fiber from Verizon at a decent price where they're selling DSL only now, and plan to for the foreseeable future...a T3 would be $6000+).
As I mentioned before, connectivity on the consumer side isn't sustainable if they're running Netflix and the provider is paying $100+ per megabit on bandwidth. The economics just don't work out. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Actually, I can say with certainty that there are plenty of areas where people would look at your statement above and say, "You do't know what you're talking about."
There are exactly two providers available in my town if you want to get fiber connectivity, and both would have to build out from their location to that of a subscriber. The providers are Time Warner Cable and Windstream. TWC wants people's business, Windstream doesn't know our market exists. 30 miles away there are three providers (Windstream, TWC, local co-op). There Windstream knows the market exists.
In rural areas with a big cableco you'll almost definitely have the ability to buy cableco fiber in town, at varying levels of expense. For a small cableco the answer to "can I get fiber" will most likely be "no." Telcos are les likely to have this sort of product for a reasonable price, and they're less likely to know what they're doing in giving you a circuit, though there are exceptions to this rule. Big providers like Level3 are available in some areas but you've struck gold if they are.
I'm sure the folks in the WISP forum would LOVE for you to find them cheaper bandwidth due to this dark/lit fiber that you're talking about. | |
|
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: What are they smoking? said by iansltx:There are exactly two providers available in my town if you want to get fiber connectivity, and both would have to build out from their location to that of a subscriber.
I dont doubt it, however that only proves my assertion. What you are talking about is the textbook definition of last mile connectivity, of which I agree is in short demand in some places. Middle mile fiber typically refers to regional fiber between major market POPs. In some cases it can overlap and include towns, however that is really last mile fiber.
--
"No you won't" -The American people to President Obama (11/2/2010)
| |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: What are they smoking? Tell that to middle mile providers/grentees from the 7.2B broadband bailout. I assure you, they will disagree completely.
Middle mile, as everyone except you defines it, is the mile (or 50, or 100) of fiber (or microwave) used to et betwee an ISP's PoP (usually in a Ier 3 or smaller cty) and a carrier neutral facility or other "zero loop" location.
By my definition, cellular backhaul all th way up to the cell site is middle mile, though the cellular provider may own part of that middle mile in the form of microwave relays. Zayo is a big playerin this space...just ask T-Mobile. Last mile is the airspace between the cell tower and the user's aircard.
Taking a wireline example, middle mile is al the way to a cable headend. Last mile is the HFC network beyond the CMTS. Last mile on telcos is where active optics stp and passive ones begin...or where the DSLAM is. With Ethernet fibr networks lik SureWest the distinction is more subtle.
You can subdivide the above into parts that the ISP traditionally owns and parts that the telco (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) Traditionally owned (the loop charfge on a T1). However the fact remains that your definition of "last mile" and "middle mile" diverge from those of everyon else. | |
|
 DavidTShe turned me into a newt
join:2006-09-01
Oakville, ON | Great Thanks for being the voice that we needed Netflix, well done. | |
|
 thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
right here
kudos:2 | Why Would Netflix Worry? The consumer is still going to subscribe to Netflix if that is what they want. If they have a low cap then they end having to stream fewer movies. The fewer movies that Netflix has to deliver to the consumer the higher their profit margin. | |
|
|  AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN.
·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: Why Would Netflix Worry? Plus they have no contractual obligations with carriers or overhead stock to deliver movies like they do in the states. If things don't work out, they load up the servers and move to Beverly.... you know the rest. 
--
If my online experience is enhanced, why are my speeds throttled?? | |
|
| | | Exactly my thoughts. Netflix must be thankful for bandwidth caps. The "all you can eat" model has a limit and they get to blame ISPs for that limit. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by thegeek:The consumer is still going to subscribe to Netflix if that is what they want. If they have a low cap then they end having to stream fewer movies. The fewer movies that Netflix has to deliver to the consumer the higher their profit margin.
The fewer movies I can stream the less of a bargin Netflix seems. Thus I cancell my subscription which = LOST REVENUE. | |
|
| | | | Re: Why Would Netflix Worry? said by BF69:said by thegeek:The consumer is still going to subscribe to Netflix if that is what they want. If they have a low cap then they end having to stream fewer movies. The fewer movies that Netflix has to deliver to the consumer the higher their profit margin.
The fewer movies I can stream the less of a bargin Netflix seems. Thus I cancell my subscription which = LOST REVENUE. The fewer movies a person can legally stream because of low caps becomes the more illegal divx avi's that get pirated because the files are smaller.
This = LOST revenue for both Netflix and content providers.
Why can't they just give people the fast dumb unlimited pipe they are asking for? I'd pay $100 a month for that. It would allow me to dump my useless commercial-laden cable tv, and it would still be cheaper than what I pay now. | |
|
| | | Caps will destroy the appeal of their service. Netflix's major costs are not associated with bandwidth, which is dirt cheap. | |
|
 FutureMonAch Du LieberPremium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA
·Suddenlink
| Netflix "bundled" with ISP Broadband plan? I wonder how long it will be before Netflix becomes part of a "bundled package" offered by ISP's.
The ISP can charge extra to allow unmetered Netflix streaming, and Netflix gets their (smaller) cut from the ISP as opposed to charging the consumer directly.
It could even be a package linked to the ISP's TV package as opposed to linking it to the internet access.
Much like you'd pay $9.99/month for showtime.
- FM
--
This just in from the department of redundancy department... | |
|
| | | Re: Netflix "bundled" with ISP Broadband plan? thats what i said above basically.....and would allow NF to connect direct to the ISP and not worry about CDN. | |
|
| | | I could see Cable and Sat companies wanted to do this with their settop boxes and add to or possibly replace their expensive VOD installations.
If they could add Netflix to their settops and have their subscribers just stream Netflix through the settop, they could eliminate a lot of overhead.
Netflix should be trying to sell something like this hard if they aren't already. I'd suspect that they are looking for deals like this. | |
|
| | | | Re: Netflix "bundled" with ISP Broadband plan? Sat doesn't have a very good way to do this. The end user would have to have their STB on HSI. So there is still a middle man with that. if they did it with an MSO it would turn out better. Or even a DSL ISP. I could see an MSO or Indie ISP wanting to partner. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Netflix "bundled" with ISP Broadband plan? I believe directv is already doing on demand via hsi. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Netflix "bundled" with ISP Broadband plan? yes it is but you have to buffer the movies according to them. they download and then play. which is a waste when you can just do this. | |
|
| |  GlennAllenSunny with highs in the 80s
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA | I suppose you mean Netflix should partner with a satellite broadband provider (since the high[er] latency should be mostly irrelevant)... yeah, works in theory (but what's the max # of users that could be streaming [HD] concurrently?). | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by FutureMon:The ISP can charge extra to allow unmetered Netflix streaming, and Netflix gets their (smaller) cut from the ISP as opposed to charging the consumer directly. Thank you Disney for your ESPN 360 extortion. Now we have people wanting similar types of deals for other services. | |
|
| | | | Re: Netflix "bundled" with ISP Broadband plan? WTF! Disney is NOT requiring ISPs to carry ESPN360. It's only an option. If they don't wanna carry it they don't have to. Nothing lost. That portal is NOT bundled with any TV offerings that they normally would require. claiming it's extortion is a flat out lie. They're not extorting anything. | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Netflix "bundled" with ISP Broadband plan? Sorry, I meant ESPN3. | |
|
 JfromKProblem
join:2010-10-30
Cobourg, ON
kudos:1
1 edit | This is why Net Neutrality is CRUCIAL! This is why Net Neutrality is CRUCIAL! ISPs should have no right in dictating what I use my paid for bandwidth allotment for be it NetFlix or... I dunno lesbian bondage.
ISPs also need to come to the table with a little more realistic numbers for what an average user is going to be now that there are so many sources of data on the net; from Youtube, to downloading multi-gigabyte games on Steam.
Sure there is a place for the 10gb plans, for Nana and Papa to get email and pictures from their family etc. There should be very high business rate plans for very heavy users. But these days 60gb a month (what Cogeco gives the Standard Package) is not enough for an "Average User" who is going to download Streamed Media. Who is going to download Multi-Gigabyte games from Steam. Who wants to send their family a home movie they made in Movie Maker or iMovie.. etc. etc. etc.
It feels like a day of reckoning is coming, and it's going to be the lobbyists and large ISPs that win the battle.. The only way to win is to tell these huge corporations to stuff their internet connectivity where the sun don't shine, but where does that leave us? Without *any* internet which kind of defeats the purpose of fighting for Neutrality and reasonable Rates and Caps in the first place... | |
|
| | | Re: This is why Net Neutrality is CRUCIAL! no such problem. Net Neutrality is a cry from what was the king of all- Google. And now the only one bitching about it is Free Press (like they always do) and Level3,
When NN becomes an issue then we can talk about it even being a such thing until then; meh, and move on. | |
|
| | | Exactly, they provide the road, who is to say what I use it for?
This is like if the phone companies owned the airwaves when cell phones came about. The trouble is that the cable companies whose entire business model is built on TV is now in many places the sole provider of internet access.
Until that changes, which I really don't see how it can, we may be doomed to get our TV via over priced forced down our throats 200+ channel plans. That will really make me sad since I enjoy the freedom to just buy netflix and watch the shows I wish without the 100usd bill per month to pay for shows I will never watch.
Then again, I just discovered today that for Qwest, my provider, 12mbs service is finally available for us loyal customers, at $20 a month higher cost than for new subscribers who also get their first six months at 30 bucks. So much for encouraging customer loyalty. | |
|
| | If cable cos kill NetFlix, they kill their internet business People are paying for bandwidth to actually use it! If all I can do is get email and simple web surfing from my internet, then I'm dropping the internet and using the phone! I already don't subscribe to cable and just use NetFlix. They want to kill my bandwidth pipe, they're gone! | |
|
| WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: If cable cos kill NetFlix, they kill their internet business That is your choice. We did without internet for centuries. I like it and if I did not have at least 6meg I would try to move. It is a service no one forces you to buy it. | |
|
| | | | Re: If cable cos kill NetFlix, they kill their internet business No s**t that's my choice. I was saying that's the choice I'll make! | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | They should be as it is obvious with AT&T's 2gb cap that companies are lowering their caps to trap users into penalties
I expect home users to soon be dealing with these laughable caps | |
|
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
| Canadian Conflict of Interest I don't know what it's like in the US, but Canadian ISP's are running to the gov't and getting ridiculous terms for customers imposed. Low caps, high per gig costs, all enforced by government. They claim network congestion, yet they are rolling out IPTV all over the place. They also limit third party ISP's using their networks to 5 mbps/60GB. Anything faster and the incumbents are cheaper.
In a not so subtle article in a Bell (large incumbent) owned newspaper/TV news website, it was suggested that if users sign up for TV services those services would do the "heavy lifting" and bandwidth caps wouldn't be a problem.
All the owners of infrastructure in Canada also retail TV (cable/satellite products) so they have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to limiting online video services through low bandwidth caps.
Canada is moving towards 3rd world internet very quickly and I don't think most people up here care. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Canadian Conflict of Interest I also heard that socialism there a lot more there interferes with the economy than in most of the Europe. Look at Europe, Germany for example,
They are doing quite well. In terms of telecommunications, we can envy them. Their links are fast, bundles cheap. Their ISPs are rolling out LTE in rural areas with much higher speeds and higher caps than in the U.S.
»www.telekom.com/dtag/cms/content···n/615128 | |
|
| DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
2 edits | -
@ markf
Further to what you said about Bell Canada, for the past 2 or 3 weeks, many of us in some sections of Ontario have been noticing that many types of video streams now seem to be crippled by the same insanely slow throttling rate which Bell also began to inflict on us without prior notice about 3 years ago to p2p traffic, and during the EXACT SAME HOURS.
Coincidence ?
I say not.
I allege that Bell is targeting Netflix and the like, and is testing something which we could call 'MAT' (Modified Algorithm Throttling), and that other source AND 3rd party TV streaming sites (which many of us use) are becoming victims in the crossfire.
Who else has noticed this ?
There are several threads about it in the Bell, Teksavvy, and Canadian Broadband forums, during the last few days.
Bell also throttles Independent ISPs' customers just as they do their own, and our freaking CRTC rubber stamped it shortly after it first began for p2p. | |
|
| |  VOD from shaw/roger/bhell only!
| |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| should be They should be worried.. I knew this would come up one day and if they don't start raising 14 kinds of hell to the fcc about unneeded caps for consumers then their industry will have a time line before death if they really plan to eventually stop mailing dvd's in favor of streaming movies.. To top it off, people that need the service for movies the most are being punished with higher prices for dvd's and even if they opted for verizons current lte plans 50 a month for 5 gigs, they would burn that up in a few minutes.. 4 gigs over is freaking 40 dollars people! pocket change to some of you, but christ, that is a weeks food allowance for me!
But noone cares, atm they have theirs, so everyone else can F off (the mentallity I recieve anyways) | |
|
| | wow. i know this is mostly off the topic but here in the rural areas of Alaska, we get speeds of 256k down 56kup...yes K not M but k. with a monthly usage of 2gigs/month. now you try watching youtube,Netflix etc on these plans! dont really know how to comment on Netflix since the main thing i used it for was for 4 dvds at a time. once im able to utilize Netflix i would comment as of now i cant though. | |
|
| | Overage fees Every month I pay $50 in overage fees to Rogers. I chew up my 125 GB or so within the first week or two of the month. Thanks to things like Netflix I'm no longer able to look at my usage and be wise about how I use it.... the quantity Rogers offers and the amount I need are just on two different scales.
That said... the $50 has become part of my "netflix payment". The way I see it I pay the $10 + $50 = $60 for unlimited TV and movies... which is comparable to what I'd pay for Rogers TV.
Is it cheaper for me? No. Is it just as convenient? Yes, even more so. | |
|
| | | Re: Overage fees This is nothing more then blatant anti competition by the major ISPs. Why license content when they can just overcharge us for using any other VOD source on the web.... This is nothing more then an attempt to prevent cable cutters because of netflix, amazon vod, justin.tv, itunes and of course bit torrent. The CRTC has allowed them to cripple our internet and rob us blind with these insane overage fees. Until every single person switches to teksavvy(only isp willing to be competitive rather then collude) we will have no chance at change....
At least in the west we can switch from shaw to telus since telus is not being a bhell follower, for now anyway. There is no reason for these pathetic caps in this day and age. This is a bigger scam then bottled water which 75% of comes straight from your local municipalitys which you pay the cost of cleaning it and then pay for again at hyper inflated prices. | |
|
| Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| Is there a reason you haven't opted for a higher plan with Rogers, or switched to TekSavvy? It's for this very reason I've decided I've had enough with Rogers (60 GB / month? That's useless these days), and I'm making the switch.
It just seems to me that $50 / month in overage fees is pointless when you could be paying a lot less, especially if you went with TekSavvy. I plan to start using services like OnLive and Netflix, and I have no intention of wasting money doing so when there's a perfectly viable, better, and cheaper option available. | |
|
| | Not sure what all the fuss is about I have a 250GB (giga-BYTE) with an upper case B. That means that I can stream a feature length HD movie EVERY day of the month and not go over caps.
I think the problem is people whose entire life is a couch potato existence in front of their screen. How many movies do you need to watch in a month? I just don't get the problem. I have a five person household with an XBOX 360 on Live, multiple mobile devices, desktops, and laptops, and multiple Netflix capable devices. I have barely cracked 100GB/mo...and we watch quite a few movies. | |
|
| flq06
join:2009-08-06
Verdun, QC | Re: Not sure what all the fuss is about Anybody else tought of deploying multicast over the internet, for live TV broadcasting (shoud say multicasting instead of broadcasting...anyways)?
There are multicast address available for every AS on the internet.
This might not be the answer to the netflix problem, but if every service provider was using all the technology available, we wouldn't be crying here today.
Just as an example, the other day I was trying to locate the source of my netflix stream. Guess what, I ended up on a cache server on the Toronto IX. If every ISP would implement this, it would would mean 1 single stream for each movie on the Peers links, all other stream would be originated from there own network, where bandwitdh is plentyfull (supposed to...). | |
|
| | | That's great but check back in a year when they reduce that 250GB a month down to 10GB with $10 per GB overage charge. We need to look at the big picture of what they'll pull down the road rather than what we have today right now. | |
|
| |  wings10I Am LegendPremium
join:2004-06-09
South Elgin, IL
·AT&T DSL Service
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Not sure what all the fuss is about Netflix is still the best deal with the discs by mail and streaming. I can still watch my 1 m or 2 movies every other day or so and do everything else and be under 100GB but I still do not like the fact that now I have a cap. And what will happen next year as we use the internet more and more? Even a lower cap? Was/is there a cap on how many phone calls you can make because the phone lines can't handle it?
--
"The American Indians found out what happens when you don't control immigration." | |
|
|
|
