another view might be that netflix's customers are eating the bandwidth
randy
"Eating Up" sounds so overweight and unhealthy. Since a good number
of us get paid for delivering bits, isn't this a good thing? Always
glad to see bits and dollars flowing into the Internet, personally.
However must express severe dissatisfaction with the topic of the
thread a while ago referencing Comcast trying to charge providers for
delivery over their network. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty happy
with the current model... even if it means a $5/month residential
rate hike (or something).
--C
Well it depends if Netflix pay for the bandwidth they use or if they get
it all for free with non settlement peering. If, suddenly, your business
model breaks because of a huge demand for high bandwidth services by
your customers then either you need to charge your customers more or
Netflix (or whoever) need to share the pie.
Leigh Porter (leigh.porter) writes:
Well it depends if Netflix pay for the bandwidth they use
You mean, customers have to pay for the bandwidth they use.
I'm sure NetFlix is paying *their* network and other transit providers
for outgoing bandwidth they consume.
or if they get it all for free with non settlement peering. If, suddenly,
your business model breaks because of a huge demand for high bandwidth
services by your customers then either you need to charge your customers
more or Netflix (or whoever) need to share the pie.
Whoever ? Nah, the consumers. Bad business model, change business model.
Phil
note the classic Man-In-The-Middle attack here. Or in other words,
the ITU half/circuit billing model for traditional telecomunications
companies.
The telecom model is : "I'll provide you with a tranist path to me,
and trust me to hand your communications to the other party you wish
to communicate with." So GTE / MaBell gets to bill -both- parties
at their usual usarious rates. The problem here is that the incumbent
operators have and are fighting tooth/nail to ensure their near monopoly
on access.
So...
We either need to re-regulate them to assure equal access at equitable rates
-or- we need to de-regulate the access market and open up last mile ROW to
all comers. What we have done is de-regulate the access and retain the monopoly
status on last mile ROW. the incumbents have captive markets and can charge
whatever the market will bear. Great work if you can get it.
If we truely beleived in end-2-end, we might see more systems
using or trying to find other access paths ... YMMV of course.
/bill
One of the UKs large residential ISPs publishes what their customers
use bandwidth for at
http://www.talktalkmembers.com/content/view/154/159/
"Streaming protocols" do use up a large % there, but only 2.9% is
listed as used by BBC iPlayer (like a no advertising version of Hulu,
but only for one broadcaster), Rapidshare and Facebook are 1.9% each,
whilst YouTube is 9.7%. It's kind of interesting.
Since a good number of us get paid for delivering bits, isn't this a
good thing?
at layer eight, having a single very large customer can be a source of
unhappy surprises.
randy
Heh- no matter what layers one through seven are...
I have first hand experience, having been laid off from my last IT
director job because such a monopsony customer yanked 3/5 of its business
Or ask *hundreds* of 35 year old companies that used to produce, nearly
exclusively, lots of specialized, flight certified parts for the Space
Shuttle Program.
Cheers,
-- jra
Well it depends if Netflix pay for the bandwidth they use or if they get
it all for free with non settlement peering.
The whole point of peering is that both sides benefit. A bit like one bringing the traffic to the half way point and the other taking it the other half of the way.
Remember that all bits are paid for by the customers on both sides.
If, suddenly, your business
model breaks because of a huge demand for high bandwidth services by
your customers then either you need to charge your customers more or
Netflix (or whoever) need to share the pie.
Anyone who builds an internet-related business model without taking into account the bandwidth use graph going straight from bottom left to upper right has no business being in this business. So charge your customers more if you have to.
But charging third parties for the privilige of being able to send them the data your customers, who are already paying you, are trying to retrieve will turn the internet into the next cable or phone network where innovation happens within the confines of what the network owners feel comfortable with. In other words, the end of the internet as we know and love/hate it today. Don't slaughter the goose with the golden eggs.
Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
Somebody should invent a a way to stream groups of shows simultaneously
and just arrange for people to watch the desired stream at a particular
time. Heck, maybe even do it wireless.
problem solved, right?
Cheers,
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
There was a lengthy discussion about that on NANOG a week or so ago. I
don't claim to understand all facets of multicast but it could be a sort of
way to operate "tv station" type scheduled programming for streaming media.
There's no way to pause, rewind or otherwise seek multicasted media though.
It would be going backwards in terms of what consumers want these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbone
It seems to me that every provider these days is using a year 2K business
model with 2011 bandwidth requirements and then complaining that consumers
are transferring too much data.
I think this shows the need for an Internet-wide multicast implementation. Although I can recall working on a product that delivered satellite multicast streams (with each multicast group corresponding to individual TV stations) to telco CO's. This enabled the telco to implement multicast at the edge of their networks, where user broadband clients would issue multicast joins only as far as the CO. If I recall this was implemented with the old Cincinnati Bell telco. I admit there are a lot of CO's and cable head-ends though for this solution to scale.
why not permit your users to subscribe to shows/instances, stream them
on-demand for viewing later... and leave truly live content
(news/sports/etc) as is, with only the ability to pause/rewind?
how is this different from broadcast tv today though?
Or perhaps even some kind of new technology that is independent of the Internet! Imagine such futuristic ideas as solar-powered spacecraft in orbit around the planet bouncing content back across massive areas so that everybody can pick them up at once.
Crazy stuff.
Joe
I don't see how multicast necasarily solves the netflix on-demand video problem. you have millions of users streaming different content at different times. multicast is great for the world cup but how does it solve the video on demand problem?
I don't see how multicast necasarily solves the netflix on-demand video
problem. you have millions of users streaming different content at different
times. multicast is great for the world cup but how does it solve the video
on demand problem?I suppose in theory if you have tivo-like devices at the endpoints then
they can capture popular programs at the time of multicast for later
viewing. Whether this is better than capturing the same programs over a
broadcast medium for later playback, I don't know...
It's not. These people need a pair of rabbit ears and a DVR.
CB
why not permit your users to subscribe to shows/instances, stream them
on-demand for viewing later... and leave truly live content
(news/sports/etc) as is, with only the ability to pause/rewind?how is this different from broadcast tv today though?
for some of us, the thing that is wonderful about netflix is the long
tail. my tastes are a sigma or three out.
randy