Slashdot Mirror


Will Netflix Destroy the Internet?

nicholasjay writes "Netflix is swallowing America's bandwidth and it probably won't be long before it comes for the rest of the world. That's one of the headlines from Sandvine's Fall 2010 Global Internet Phenomena Report, an exhaustive look at what people around the world are doing with their Internet lines. According to Sandvine, Netflix accounts for 20 percent of downstream Internet traffic during peak home Internet usage hours in North America. That's an amazing share — it beats that of YouTube, iTunes, Hulu, and, perhaps most tellingly, the peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol BitTorrent."

75 of 577 comments (clear)

  1. So, how long before... by Nevo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...my ISP starts punishing me for using the Internet to do legal things that the Internet was designed for?

    1. Re:So, how long before... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long? What about your water company? I know in my area both of these apply. Which is why it's cheaper to have water trucked in than it is to use the old garden hose. If I was closer to a fire hydrant I could ask the water company to run a line and hook up a meter as well.

      Or are you just a bit sore that your 500GB limit, which probably equates to 100 netflix movies a month will be used up? If you're watching 100 netflix movies a month I suggest you try using that other service called..

      FRESH AIR.

    2. Re:So, how long before... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dare say you'd be wrong. Envisioning things way ahead of where they currently were was pretty much their job description.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    3. Re:So, how long before... by LHorstman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The FRESH AIR service is over rated. It's polluted by too much reality programming.

    4. Re:So, how long before... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      with 2^32 addresses?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    5. Re:So, how long before... by Elbart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guess what Sandvine is selling: http://www.sandvine.com/customers/cable_providers.asp "Differentiated Services -- prioritize multimedia applications to ensure a high-quality online experience for subscribers (VoIP, IPTV, gaming)"

    6. Re:So, how long before... by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know. This could be a GOOD thing. Previously, there seemed to be some stigma attached to high bandwidth users. Anyone who was using a lot of bandwidth was "obviously" doing SOMETHING shady. With the birth of services like this, it's starting to become quite common for regular old users to suck-up lots of bandwidth. I think the ISP's may finally have to pony up some dough and upgrade their infrastructure.

      Of course, if they'd had a bit of sense, they'd have realized a simple truth that applies to almost any computer usage, be it processing power, bandwidth, or anything else: today's power users use what tommorow's regular users are. Rather than trying to persecute your heavy users, use them as a metric to gauge what you need to roll out.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:So, how long before... by Amouth · · Score: 3, Informative

      that was supposed to be only for the testing group

      problem is it never ended

      http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/why-ipv6-vint-cerf-keeps-blaming-himself

      some wanted a 128bit others a 32bit..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    8. Re:So, how long before... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      500? 150? Hate to break the news to ya, but I'm in one of the "test markets" for the "new" caps, and guess what? It is 36Gb for residential and 76Gb for business so you can say goodbye to things like Netflix, because with caps THAT low, good luck watching movies on the net. Oh and if you go over? $1.50 per Gb! Of course these caps don't count for their own services, nor do they count for Windows updates because they are setting up a WSUS server. Now that net neutrality is dead expect expect to join me in suckitude my friends. My ISP is Cox but from what I was told once they roll it out nationally the others WILL fall suit.

      So enjoy while you can my friends, the party is nearly over. With caps that low the ISPs are gonna make out like robber barons, their test data shows the little old ladies and soccer moms won't be affected so there won't be any bitching from that circle, and of course I'm sure the *.A.A will be happy to throw lots of spin and marketing behind them to the tune of "Only thieves use THAT much bandwidth!" complete with charts in PPT showing how many MP3s or some other worthless comparison. Welcome to the future, where if you don't have FIOS (which from what I understand Verizon is quickly slowing or stopping rollouts all over the place) then you get to enjoy pre broadband Internet. Trust me, it does suck.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:So, how long before... by MindKata · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say, if "Netflix is swallowing America's bandwidth" then America bandwidth needs to increase.

      @parent post, I know you are joking about ISPs but this story is really a covert PR story by the anti net neutrality people. This same kind of story was tried in the UK using the example of the BBC iPlayer bandwidth, trying to say it was a major drain on UK Internet bandwidth ... which they then followed up with along the lines of “so hey, how about we charge extra for iPlayer bandwidth”, when the real problem was the UK bandwidth was and still is too low (just like America bandwidth). In countries with much faster internet access, these video services take up far less of the overall percentage of bandwidth and so do not swallow all the bandwidth.

      Scare stories like this are used as a marketing chess move by the anti net neutrality lot of lobbyists. They want to charge for specific kinds of data and in the UK the next move they are playing is also aiming to earn even more from then also spying on the data (via deep-packet inspection) which is also needed to kill net neutrality. (The growing Police State in the UK is also seeking to use deep-packet inspection for its 24/7 spying on everyone). Deep-packet inspection has to be made illegal globally or they will continue to push to exploit it.

      So to the idea "Netflix is swallowing America's bandwidth", I say, bullshit!, America needs and in time will have more bandwidth, so these reports are bullshit, no one needs to worry about these scare stories. Its like the old saying, follow the money, and the money people are behind stories like this.

      Plus oh what a surprise, Sandvine, the creators of this so called report, (Two faced PR marketing move more like), already use deep-packet inspection, so they would gain from killing net neutrality and selling their services.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandvine

      Sandvine you two faced bastards, we can see through your chess moves.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    10. Re:So, how long before... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was designed to connect research institutions (universities) to each other and to military research institutions (DARPA). It was not designed to be resistant to attack, much less nuclear attack. The ability to reroute is, and was, necessary because physical equipment and lines are prone to intermittent failure.

      You, and whoever modded you Informative, are ignorant idiots.

    11. Re:So, how long before... by kent_eh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know. This could be a GOOD thing. Previously, there seemed to be some stigma attached to high bandwidth users. Anyone who was using a lot of bandwidth was "obviously" doing SOMETHING shady. With the birth of services like this, it's starting to become quite common for regular old users to suck-up lots of bandwidth. I think the ISP's may finally have to pony up some dough and upgrade their infrastructure.

      Of course, if they'd had a bit of sense,

      Thing is, the ISPs are still pissed off that you are buying a legitimate service from someone other than themselves. So they aren't going to do anything that would make it easier for you to give your money to anyone who isn't them.
      You are still "obviously" doing something very wrong in their eyes.

      There is no way the ISPs (especially cablecos and telcos) will change their position on this and be customer friendly unless they are forced with a pretty big stick
      And after the recent US election, I can't see that happening in the near future. Consumer protection laws seem to be pretty much the opposite of the Tea Party philosophy. Or GOP, for that matter (speaking as a non-american looking in)

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    12. Re:So, how long before... by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think all ISPs realize that bandwidth needs to increase. Looking at a bandwidth graph over the last three decades would make that plainly obvious.

      However, how will this be paid for? They say it should be the Googles and the Netflixes, I say it should come out of their CEO's new yacht fund. That, I think, is where the point of contention lies.

    13. Re:So, how long before... by 246o1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My ISP is going to give me what they are advertising or I'll switch ISPs.

      So you can do this once before you run out of ISPs, right?

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    14. Re:So, how long before... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It may just be that I'm misinterpreting your phrasing, but even while disagreeing with them you seem to have fallen into the ISP's trap: Google and Netflix are already paying for their upstream bandwidth. They pay upstream at the datacenter, the customers pay downstream at the home/office.

      What the ISPs want is for the content providers to pay something for the downstream at the customer's end as well as the customer.

      Incidentally, I get the impression that there's actually plenty of capacity, for the moment at least. Obviously upgrades cost money and must be ongoing, but my 50Mbps connection in London was reasonably priced (when split between a household of four), uncapped and provided close enough to the advertised speed that I was happy.

      It's less that they're worried about covering the cost of upgrades (although I'm sure that comes into it somewhat) and more that they just want to come up with a plausible sounding reason to be paid twice.

    15. Re:So, how long before... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is the problem. They want to MAXIMIZE profit from the bandwidth. Not get a good profit or healthy profit, but MAXIMIZE it in any way possible. Comcast does it by intentionally not upgrading their downstream paths. Even 10 years ago Comcast was capable of 10BaseT speeds Up and Down over cable modems to the headends for ALL the people in the area that headend serves. The problem is that headend is connected via fiber to a larger headend. That larger headend has another 5-10 connect to it, and a Single OC3 feeds 5+ cities if you are lucky for it to have an OC3. The area I worked in was selling 5Mbit service and I knew that the backend was nothing more than 2 bonded t3's that way too little bandwidth for the number of subs on that POP.

      ISP's are screwing the pooch in increasing their backbone connection speeds. Until they get a LOT of complaints, they will continue to major oversell the available bandwidth. it's now well past the 100 to 1 ratio at most.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re:So, how long before... by delinear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ISPs have absolutely nobody to blame but themselves. They sell ever faster services on the back of promises that it will let you stream video, then complain when people use it to... surprise surprise... stream video. It's no different to the days when they offered "unlimited downloads" then complained if anyone went over a few gigs per month. They want to sell you a service that you will never use, in the hope they can sell the same service to lots of other people who'll also never use it and then they won't actually need to provide the service. They need to wake up and smell the coffee, if they can't deliver this stuff they shouldn't promise it and they certainly shouldn't be taking our money for it.

    17. Re:So, how long before... by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here is the problem. They want to MAXIMIZE profit from the bandwidth. Not get a good profit or healthy profit, but MAXIMIZE it in any way possible. Comcast does it by intentionally not upgrading their downstream paths. Even 10 years ago Comcast was capable of 10BaseT speeds Up and Down over cable modems to the headends for ALL the people in the area that headend serves. The problem is that headend is connected via fiber to a larger headend. That larger headend has another 5-10 connect to it, and a Single OC3 feeds 5+ cities if you are lucky for it to have an OC3. The area I worked in was selling 5Mbit service and I knew that the backend was nothing more than 2 bonded t3's that way too little bandwidth for the number of subs on that POP.

      This is all true.

      ISP's are screwing the pooch in increasing their backbone connection speeds. Until they get a LOT of complaints, they will continue to major oversell the available bandwidth. it's now well past the 100 to 1 ratio at most.

      Thankfully, I can think of nothing else that will get the average American more in a tiff than their chosen source of entertainment suddenly not working.

    18. Re:So, how long before... by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. 1080p with AC3 surround compressed at a mpeg4 is only 12GB per movie. Split out the AC3 into separate tracks and compress the crap out of it to 160kbps and you can lower it by another .5GB. and this low bitrate is acceptable to 99% of all netflix users.

      But, here is the fun.... you get 720p max from netflix... so it's actually 5-6Gb from them.

      Have you actually tried to do any bluray compression to mpeg4? 25GB is for uncompressed or mildly compressed only 2 Blurays I have ripped have had any main feature above the 25GB mark. Most blurays are compressed to hell.. AVCHD is the darling for bluray.

      It's why I always though that HD-DVD was better. simple MPEG2 on the disc delivered far better picture with less hardware power.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:So, how long before... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the ISP's may finally have to pony up some dough and upgrade their infrastructure.

      ha ha ha ha ha.... wait, were you serious?

      Most ISPs are also content providers. Especially the cable companies. They don't like services like Netflix because it reduces demand for cable TV offerings. What they will really do is impose caps with overages or speed slowdowns. In the latter case, you can watch Netflix online, but after one or two movies, suddenly the video keeps buffering for a long time making it useless. In the former case, you watch a dozen movies during the month and then get a huge bill from your ISP because you're a "bandwidth hog." And if you don't like it? Tough, since you probably don't have many (if any) ISP choices where you live.

      On one hand, ISPs have the option to pay to upgrade their networks which might bring them more revenue in the future or may help erode another of their money makers. On the other hand, ISPs could restrict your use of that "eroding service" and/or turn it into a money maker for them. Which choice do *you* think the ISP will make?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    20. Re:So, how long before... by HotBits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The old cable-TV model is slowly collapsing for a few reasons:

      The basic architecture of one pipe shared by whole neighborhoods is inherently bandwidth limited and not scalable.

      In the sub-nets where the Internet signal is sent over coax along with TV signals (not the fiber backbones), the interference (intermodulation distortion) resulting from large numbers of signals originating from the customer’s modems reduces bandwidth quickly. Cable is inherently one-way, and does poorly when pressed into bi-directional service.

      New Internet companies are able to distribute media ala-carte at much lower cost. Partly because they don’t have the contractual obligations to distribute content. The dispute between Fox and Cablevision is but one example of the greedy content providers forcing all cable customers to pay, whether they watch the content or not.

      Demand and use of high speed Internet and high resolution HD channels is increasing rapidly.

      Services like Verizon FIOS have a major edge over the antique cable system as they have individual pipes to each home and can increase total bandwidth with less infrastructure.

    21. Re:So, how long before... by hjf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought networking technology also evolved. I mean 15 years ago I had a 166 pentium MMX and now I have a 3GHz Core i7. 15 years ago my LAN was 10mbit on Coax but now I have Gigabit.

      But for some reason, ISP gear doesn't seem to grow as fast as consumer stuff? Cause I keep hearing about T3s and OC-3s and 622mbps. How much fibre capacity unused out there,d ont you think? I mean, a 12-core fibre carries 144 strands, or 72 full-duplex connections. Almost 10 years ago, a Cisco 12000 series router could push 40gbps in each of those. 6 years ago, Cisco introduced the CRS-1 router which could switch 92Tbps, and they have the CRS-3 now (last time I checked).

      I thought the largest carriers didn't even PAY for bandwidth, as the traffic was kept inside their own network most of the time? And when it reached another network, they usually had a peering agreement for a VERY low price?

      Now I'm comfused

      (Sarcasm)

    22. Re:So, how long before... by powerlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't have Netflix so I'm not sure what their bandwidth "cost" per hour is, but on Hulu an average 1 hour show is ~ 150-200MB.

      That 36GB per month (and I'm assuming its GBytes and not Gbits that the limit is measured in), would translate to ~180 hours of Programming barring other uses, which I understand is unrealistic.

      Assuming you only watch 90 hours of programming a month (a ~4.5 weeks a month that translates to 20 hours a week), that still leaves 18GB of "other" traffic (music, web, chat, VoIP (which should be less than VoD)).

      For a single person, or a house where there is are two or more, but only one person is stressing the network at once, this should still be good (but starts to become an issue)

      Throw in a bittorrent client, or a teen/child wanting to watch their own shows on their computer, and it could be a problem though. Chances are you'll see a hit in bandwidth and quality once that happens though. I watch how Hulu sometimes stutters and buffers a bit more when my wife is using Skype (now that she's discovered it :) ). Its one of the reasons I like "download and watch" models over "stream". It may take longer till you can see the show, but you have less chance of interruptions in viewing.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    23. Re:So, how long before... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>$1.50 per Gb!

      So if you're paying $40 for 36 GB, that's $1.11. Yep they are ripping your off by raising their rates.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:So, how long before... by mlts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where other countries are not just dropping fiber and lighting it up, the US's bandwidth is actually shrinking. You might get fiber drops in a few cities, but in most of the country, either one ends up with the same or less bandwidth. You also get tiered pricing, metered bandwidth, and additional fees, so it is more expensive now than it was five years ago for the same amount of MB/second.

      If Netflix is "burdening" ISPs, then the ISPs better suck it up, call their Cisco rep and get some new hardware. This is what they are paid by subscribers to do. Not tack on extra fees and give up in despair.

      Take a look at China, Japan, and Korea. People watch TV on their phones. Not just the local equivalent of Fox News, but they can hit a Web page and stream any movie they darn want to instantly. In full high def. Europeans can stream music via Spotify of anything and everything they care to listen to. Why is it that the ISPs in those countries don't wring their hands in front of the Diet/Parliament/National People's Congress of how they are being wronged by high bandwidth use?

    25. Re:So, how long before... by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can copy and paste your post as a reply to many subjects. It reads like an astrology prediction.

      What exactly is your opinion on the matter of Netflix using a lot of bandwidth?

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    26. Re:So, how long before... by cob666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If an ISP increases the amount of bandwidth to accomodate Netflix, there is no additional revenue in it for them. Therefore, as the previous poster asked, who pays for the additional bandwidth? I agree that there is no easy answer, but net neutrality and the fact that a handful of bandwidth-hogging services are consuming the bandwidth for everyone are directly linked.

      The ISP should NOT be increasing bandwidth to accomodate Netflix, they should be increasing bandwidth because they (the ISP) have been telling consumers to get the fastest plan so they (subscribers) can stream video. Whether the video comes from Netflix isn't or at least shouldn't be relevant. It's time that ISP started backing up their advertising claims.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    27. Re:So, how long before... by nabsltd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2-3 movies of 90 minutes each a week ok let's see.

      For a household of 4 people (not at all uncommon outside of /. readers), around one hour of video entertainment (movie, TV, etc.) per week per person seems like almost nothing to me.

      And, if you are using Hulu, Netflix, etc., as a replacement for cable TV, then 5 hours per week per person isn't outrageous, either.

    28. Re:So, how long before... by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google and Netflix are already paying for their upstream bandwidth

          A lot of people really don't understand that. They probably have cheap hosting accounts, and have never needed to deal with actual circuits.

          I've worked at places with multiple GigE circuits. Besides the base cost in the datacenter (floor space, power, port charges, etc), we had negotiated contracts on bandwidth. 95th percentile is that bastard of a number that we deal with all the time. For those that don't know, it goes something like this. The uplink provider monitors our ports once every 5 minutes. At the end of the month, they take all the samples, sort them by utilization, and knock off the top 5%. Whatever that next number is, is what we pay. There are dedicated rates too. If you don't use the line, that doesn't matter, you're paying at lest a minimum fixed amount, which could be something like 20% of the line capacity. So an idle datacenter with nothing in it, but it has a GigE circuit could cost as if we were using 200Mb/s at 95th percentile.

          For our bills, it was easily over $100,000/mo. That's a conservative number, but I haven't been there in a while, and don't remember how high it really went. Do you want fancier services, like multiple circuits into your space, BGP routing, etc? Oh, the price goes way up. When you get big enough, and want to get your data to the customers faster, you start doing private peerings, and putting out edge nodes (servers closer to the clients, like Akamai provides), or even putting dedicated servers in on the end user networks. They don't like paying huge bandwidth and peering bills, when they can deploy $100k worth of equipment two hops from the customer.

          If NetFlix is sucking up so much bandwidth, someone's making a fortune on it already. So it accounts for 20%, big deal, that doesn't indicate the total utilization of the available, or even where it was measured. I played this game once. I took the total bandwidth my company used during peak hours, and compared it to the Mae East bandwidth graphs (when they were public). Our bandwidth used 15% of what Mae East passed. And guess what. It didn't destroy the world. We weren't even responsible for 15% of what passed through Mae East, because various peerings meant our traffic went in all kinds of different directions.

          By that standard, NetFlix could use 200% of what passes through Mae East (plural now), and even that wouldn't mean anything other than bragging rights. Sure, it's a lot of bandwidth, but it doesn't indicate saturation of available resources, nor the end of anything at all.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    29. Re:So, how long before... by Filmcell-Keyrings · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's in an ISPs best interests to increase bandwidth before their competitors do. I know that there is often not a lot of choice so consumers dont have many options, but if one company makes the jump and increases bandwith significantly, how long before customers start jumping ship, especially once they realise that Netflix etc start working better.

      --
      Never rub another man's rhubarb
  2. Will posting inflammatory headlines by Nimey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    destroy Slashdot?

    It's well on the way - /. just isn't as relevant as it was years back.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Will posting inflammatory headlines by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And yet it gets tons of page views. The bottom line is that the parent company has chosen to go more after dollars than making a niche group happy. Take from that what you will.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  3. The answer is... by adamgolding · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes. Clearly Netflix will 'destroy the internet'.

    1. Re:The answer is... by enderjsv · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are you talking about. Netflix runs in Firefox just fine. It also runs on the Wii and the xbox 360. You can also buy a $99 box sold separately to run in on your tv if you so desire. Pretty sure it's here to stay.

    2. Re:The answer is... by nizo · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI, Netflix works just fine from Firefox running under Windows (at least it does on my home XP box). And no, aside from inside of a virtual host there is no way to watch Netflix instant streaming movies with Linux.

    3. Re:The answer is... by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, is there a way to stream Netflix under Linux yet (aside from in a VM?)

      Why bother? It's only 1% of the market, if that.

      Watch it in a VM, or watch it on your Wii, or your Xbox, or your PS3, or your bluray player, or any of the scores of other devices that stream Netflix.

      Yes, Netflix works in all browsers, it just doesn't work on Linux. And frankly, most people don't care.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  4. Bandwidth? by Joehonkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that bandwidth is what I pay my ISP for...

    1. Re:Bandwidth? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. I think it's more accurate to say that deregulation and a lack of oversight are killing the internet. The companies aren't making the upgrades necessary to keep up with demand and are instead trying to charge more for less. The cost of DSL service here hasn't gone up, but the speed and bandwidth haven't either. With amortization schedules and the cost of bandwidth being what they are, you wouldn't expect that.

      Well, you wouldn't expect that if there was any competition and the ISPs actually cared what the consumers wanted. Worse, I live in a major city, it's doubtless much worse outside of major cities.

    2. Re:Bandwidth? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it's more accurate to say that deregulation and a lack of oversight are killing the internet.

      Yeah. If the regulators had had their way we'd all have ISDN by now.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  5. OK, and? by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 4, Informative
    Two things:

    First, they've known this was coming for ages. P2P have been around well over a decade and everybody knew people were downloading movies and TV shows and watching them on their computer. It's just hitting bigtime mainstream now and Netflix was the first commercial entity which did it right.

    Second, the 'Will Porn/Youtube/Torrents/P2P/Netflix/etc Destroy The Internet?" articles have been around for ages. The providers adapt, the technology adapts.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  6. Netflix rocks! by mrflash818 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and that is 20% of the internet's bandwidth no longer available to email spammers, too.

    win-win

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  7. What happened to the Dark Fiber? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Remember when the internet bubble burst? People were pumping ooodles of money into fiber optic companies saying, "no matter who wins the internet race the infrastructure companies will be minting money. Remember the shovel makers made money in the gold rush than the prospectors." And when the bubble burst we had thousands and thousands of miles of fiber cables with the unused "dark" fiber strands out numbering the used strands by a huge factor. People were touting numbers as high as 1: 99 lit:dark ratio. So it should be possible to bring them on line and increase the internet bandwidth by orders of magnitude without too much of additional investment. Or so pontificating pundits were prognosticating.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:What happened to the Dark Fiber? by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it was all bought up long ago and there was an article here a few weeks ago how most of it has been lit up and the bandwidth has almost been used up.

    2. Re:What happened to the Dark Fiber? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the dark fiber in the world won't help solve the Last Mile problem.

    3. Re:What happened to the Dark Fiber? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      His point is that need is increasing.

      Dark fiber is dark because in areas that needed 1 fiber, the additional cost to run a bundle of fibers was miniscule. (Labor costs to lay the fiber dominated the material costs.)

      Probably on the line of 1 fiber might cost 100 million, and 100 fibers might cost 101 million.

      So if we go past the capacity of one fiber, we can in theory light up another. In practice, there might be space constraints at the endpoints that weren't thought of when the big bundles were laid down.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    4. Re:What happened to the Dark Fiber? by lennier · · Score: 3, Funny

      All the dark fiber in the world won't help solve the Last Mile problem.

      Both of which would make great Stephen King novel titles.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. How does never work for you by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most ISP's in the US already have a (high) data cap. Whatever you do under that, they will not care. If there were (or are) any ISP's with "unlimited" bandwidth then they will have to change policy also to have some kind of data cap, because they do not get "unlimited" bandwidth from the people they purchase internet connectivity from.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How does never work for you by Anubis350 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most business class connections and up are true unlimited, based on the connection speed, not on the amount. Verizon doesn't care if I max out my FIOS business class connection 24/7, I'm paying a premium for the connection, and they're providing me the bandwidth I'm paying for. To put it another way, they've allocated that trunk as if it were going to be heavily used, and so aren't over-selling as much as on the consumer connections.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    2. Re:How does never work for you by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most ISP's in the US already have a (high) data cap. Whatever you do under that, they will not care. If there were (or are) any ISP's with "unlimited" bandwidth then they will have to change policy also to have some kind of data cap, because they do not get "unlimited" bandwidth from the people they purchase internet connectivity from.

      A classic study would be Canada. When Netflix came to Canada or announced plans to do so, Rogers (cable) immediately LOWERED their measly caps from 60GB to 30GB-ish. Bell (DSL) heavily lobbied the CRTC so DSL connections can be billed by the byte, so that ISPs using Bell's lines are at a huge disadvantage. Shaw (cable) already announced plans to charge overage charges at $2/GB (for "lite" and "high speed" users) or $1/GB (for the faster plans - warp/nitro). You can pay extra for more - $5 for 10GB and the like. Right now it's a trial, but they're planning on rolling it out.

      SO yeah, Netflix's potential for clogging the Internet won't happen. Ditto the "bandwidth crunch".

      Heck, the FCC may make stupid rules, but in Canada without those rules, things are a lot worse. I can't have digital cable without buying and paying monthly fees on the cable provider's box (which only works with that provider - they won't (and don't have to) allow activation of 3rd party boxes). No Firewire video at all. No cablecard (crap, but at least I could use my TiVo). No unencrypted digital cable (if I want high-def for free, I have to stick an antenna up - no rules saying all those channels must be unencrypted QAM), etc.

    3. Re:How does never work for you by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Sandvine's claims for Canada call into question their American data. Sandvine claims that Netflix accounts for 95% of data in Canada during peak hours, and this only a month after launch with a currently very small customer base. If they're going to claim such ridiculous and provably false figures (several independent ISPs have spoken up saying that, while they have noticed an increase, 95% is a load of crock), how can you trust their US data?

  10. Already a non-starter in Canada by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

    The average person has a 60gb cap in Canada. People have quickly found out that they can blow through 1/2 to 3/4's of their monthly cap in a weekend. I'm sure it'll be more interesting as winter rolls around, we like snow, hockey, and all that. But curling up to watch a movie or 4 when it's -40C and snowing out is much better fun. Especially if there's a 30% chance you're going to spend 3hrs shoveling.

    But sandvine is a blight on the internet. You can happily hear about all the horror stories(look on dslreports.com) that they've inflicted on Canadians, as ISP's use their equipment to throttle just about everything. Bell enjoys using them after the last mile, before switching to outside networks, even when you're on another ISP. So regardless of what happens, you're still being throttled by bell. Rogers like using it to throttle everywhere, that they think the consumption might be too high, or where growth is outpacing their delayed upgrades.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  11. netflix will price itself out before it happens by alen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i have netflix and the streaming selection is pretty bad compared to the DVD selection. the reason is that they haven't struck deals with most content creators yet.

    my cable bill is $130 a month for TV/DVR/Internet/phone and from what i've read approximately $30 of that goes to the content creators. for netflix to offer all the content there is they will probably have to raise their prices as they strike new deals for more content, especially if it will include movies and new TV shows that just played the night before.

    if i wanted to dump cable i'd have to pay more for a la carte internet and more to AT&T to increase my cell phone plan to unlimited minutes. it would kill the entire deal since it makes more sense to just pay $10 a month for a DVR

    and this theory is based on just he financials of striking content deals. netflix will have to pay a lot more in bandwidth costs as the amount of content increases.

    i don't understand the entire streaming fad. it's only around because the cable companies are always a few years behind. with digital/HD cable what you watch on your cable box is essentially streaming except it's a lot more efficient than netflix's TCP/IP over the internet version. the cable companies just need to update their software and service selection

  12. The answer is - Never by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Never.

    Netflix is not Bittorent and has a well defined source which is a commercial entity. So the ISP knows after who it needs to go. Further to this, as it is not P2P traffic Netflix itself has no choice but to grow its infrastructure if it is to retain its service level. Otherwise it will congest its links to ISPs and kill its own service offering.

    So Netflix will have to start building its network infrastructure and peer with ISPs close to the user across the US and the globe.

    We have already been through this. Before it was Google/Youtube destroying the Internet. Well it did not. Simply Google now has a backbone which can put most tier 1s to shame and peers with anyone anywhere.

    Most importantly, the number of links and peerings will increase so the end result will be GOOD for the Internet as it will become more resilient (Assuming ISPs use local/distributed peering not just for Netflix but for the other peering).

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    1. Re:The answer is - Never by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Netflix is not Bittorent and has a well defined source which is a commercial entity. So the ISP knows after who it needs to go.

      Netflix already pays its ISPs. There's no one for anyone to "go after".

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:The answer is - Never by somaTh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Caveat to that: If your local internet provider is also your TV provider, then yes. They might very well have a vested interest in restricting your net TV viewing.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
  13. Everybody is being paid just fine. by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh noes! They're taking the bandwidth! Except everyone's being paid, and its still cheaper all around per movie than using the mail. The cable companies are being paid for internet access, the entertainment owners are paid for the right to distribute the content, all the equipment is more than being paid for - and everyone is making a profit.

    The fact that it's using 20% of the bandwidth isn't alarming either - a movie is a lot of web pages/email/etc., but everyone involved can afford to keep the equipment running, and do a little infrastructure expansion to get more customers needs met, all to make more profit.

    This isn't the end either - the moment some form of mass entertainment can be created that legitimately requires more bandwidth, and a service provider can successfully provide that bandwidth to unseat the other service providers, then they will do that, and will likely use several times more bits per second - and by then it will be even cheaper relative to the gasoline used for mail service.

    The real alarm is that this process is making other forms of entertainment less relatively appealing to the masses. The cable companies don't like playing the role of bulk service providers in a realm they prefer to be premium content providers in - and thanks to monopoly powers, they're considering providing a non-neutral-net internet service in the name of "saving bandwidth" to fight Netflix's little game.

    Ryan Fenton

  14. Comment on the statistics by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 5, Informative

    Excuse my trolling for karma here, but there's a good comment below that article that's worth noting (which I only remembered because I saw this article when it was first posted a while ago).

    Farhad, Allow me to make one clarification on the Sandvine report cited. While the growth of Netflix has certainly been dramatic, it does not (yet) account for 90% of Internet traffic on any of the networks included in our study. Rather, As you noted correctly, we did see Netflix accounting for approximately 20% of downstream traffic in North America.

    The confusion on the 90% stat probably resulted from a misreading of one of the graphs featured in our “Spotlight On: Netflix” on page 15 of our Fall Global Internet Phenomena report. The graph was accompanied with the caption “An average day for Netflix on this network, peaking at 9:30pm” This particular graph (taken from a single network in Canada) shows Netflix traffic throughout the day as a relative percentage of the peak amount of Netflix traffic. In this case, the peak was reached at 9:30pm, so the curve at that point has a value of 100%. The rest of the curve shows how Netflix traffic varies: so we see that at midnight the level of Netflix is approximately 42% of what it was at 9:30pm. In hindsight, I think we probably could have explained this better in our report.

    Our Network Analytics product produces these “Time of Day” graphs so that network operators can understand how subscriber usage of various applications, services, or categories of application vary throughout a typical day. Thanks again for the interesting article.

    Sincerely, Tom Donnelly, EVP Marketing, Sandvine

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  15. Re:I can confirm this story by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps the solution is for ISPs to stop lying about how much bandwidth they can provide? Seriously, they charge Netflix and me to stream movies to me, if they can't provide the amount of bandwidth they're promising, then they need to do something about it.

    Unfortunately that something is going to target the consumer because the government lacks the balls to tell a corporation to go fuck itself and compete for business.

  16. Using the internet will destroy it, story at 11 by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, using the Internet for transporting data between machines will destroy it. We must avoid using the Internet in order to save it so that it will be there for future generations to not use!

  17. Re:Streaming Netflix was disappointing by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Informative

    As TFA implies, selection has improved greatly over the past year or two.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  18. I think he means things like cache engines by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You go to the big (and maybe even small) ISPs and say "We'll provide you with hardware to store Netflix movies. When customers request movies that are on there, it'll come from those, rather than our servers. We pay all the hardware costs, you save on bandwidth."

    Akamai does just this. They peer with all sorts of people to get their cache engines in ISPs. At the university I work at, they came to us. The deal was they'd provide the computers (3 servers last I checked) and a switch. We set up our networking to go to those first. Net effect is when you ask for something that has been cached on there, you get it locally, rather than from one of their server farms. Keeps their bandwidth costs down, our bandwidth costs down, and increases speed. Now not everything is stored there, they host a lot of shit. I don't know how their computers decide what to keep where. Some popular things (like Microsoft updates) I think get auto cached, others I think it is based on demand. However even with just a fraction of their content cached, it makes a big difference in bandwidth.

    Netflix may need to start doing the same. I mean video is the ultimate in things that could be multi-cast, except that we want it on demand. Well cache engines work well for that. Since the video never changes or gets updated you push it out when you get it, and then those serve it up to people as often as they want it.

    1. Re:I think he means things like cache engines by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But one of the biggest ISPs is Time Warner Cable. They are certainly **not** going to help
      Netflix deliver unlimited movies for $13/mo, when TW charges a lot more for the same thing.

      --
      >;k
    2. Re:I think he means things like cache engines by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Informative

      Netflix uses Akamai.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  19. Re: Everything in canada sucks by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    fuck back when I lived in Ontario they had a "sewer tax".. that's right you pay for the frigging sewer underneath your house in addition to your normal yearly federal and provisional tax

    What, you think that pipeline is maintained for free? You think they treat your shit and dispose of it for free?

    Where I live the sewers are included as a line-item in the water bill, but that’s just semantics. You’re paying for it one way or another.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  20. This is what they SOLD us by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My ISP makes a point of saying it - "Streaming movies and TV shows". Right there in it's spiel. All the networks are rigged to favour it - our Last Mile is asynchronous, giving us more downstream than upstream, because they want us to be good little consumers and download content, not upload it.

    And now people are making scared noises because it finally worked and people started doing it? And not just scared noises, deploying technical measures to counteract it? My ISP will throttle your connection if you download more than 750MB during "peak" hours ; exactly the time you'd want to be watching a movie. Good luck with that if the stream bandwidth exceeds your new bandwidth limit, which is very likely if it's an HD stream.

    While I'm glad they are taking measures to prevent my connection grinding to a halt, I'm rather disappointed that they aren't upgrading their Last Mile enough to support it - especially as they make such a fuss about being "fibre optic" (to the cabinet, not the home, shame).

  21. Re:No, it's just static content. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Informative
  22. Will Ford Destroy the highway system? by Mikey48 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your intrepid reported, reporting from 1910...

    Many people are reporting the growing difficulty of navigating their horses and buggies through the town streets due to the growing presence of noisy and fast moving motor cars made by Henry Ford. Predictions are that because of this obnoxious growth in motor cards that our highways will become completely unusable within 10 years!

  23. 4294967296 addresses should b enough for everybody by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    seriously, four billion addresses is almost enough for every man, woman and child on the planet (in 1969) to have one.

    You don't honestly believe we would have more computers than people, do you?!!!


    Plus, this whole electronic data processing thing is just a fad...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  24. Will Netflix Destroy the Internet? by Phizzle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No.

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  25. Re:4294967296 addresses should b enough for everyb by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have 3 people in my home and 37 computers. I have a total of 37 IP addresses inside my lan, every one of those things are a computer. the 4 BLuray players are all computers. the Two big TV's are computers, the Apple TV's are computers, the 6 NAS boxes, the 2 Crestron processors, the 4 chumbys, etc......

    I only need 1 to the world because I can use NAT. Some wackjobs think NAT is evil... I think they are wackjobs. I do not WANT most of my computers to EVER be directly on the internet. Even if I was given 10,000 Internet IP's I would still NAT and I guarantee most businesses will as well.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  26. Re:Proof that people will pay by hawguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't worry, movie executives are working to close this hole as soon as possible:

    Studios May Delay Netflix/Redbox Movie Rentals Even Longer; Offer Fewer Watch Instantly Choices on Netflix
    http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/11/03/movie-studios-delay-rentals-fewer-choices-watch-instantly-time-warner-premium-vod-2/

    That was a close call -- for a while, people have been able to get the content they want how they want it, but the industry is taking appropriate steps to end that and make sure that consumers can only view content when the industry wants them to and how the industry wants them to.

  27. Innovation legislation by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Deep-packet inspection has to be made illegal globally or they will continue to push to exploit it.

    Deep packet inspection should be made legal everywhere, so everybody is pushed into encrypting everything all the time. Global adoption of encryption is a far better protection from privacy invasions like deep packet inspection than a piece of paper. Innovation before legislation, please.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  28. We've heard this before by Comboman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1990's: "Spam email is using up all the available bandwidth."
    2000's: "P2P file-sharing is using up all the available bandwidth."
    2010's: "Netflix is using up all the available bandwidth."

    Somehow the internet survived and will continue to do so.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  29. Re:4294967296 addresses should b enough for everyb by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a total of 37 IP addresses inside my lan, every one of those things are a computer. the 4 BLuray players are all computers. the Two big TV's are computers, the Apple TV's are computers, the 6 NAS boxes, the 2 Crestron processors, the 4 chumbys, etc...... I only need 1 to the world because I can use NAT. Some wackjobs think NAT is evil... I think they are wackjobs.

    I note you have no video game consoles, and so I assume further that you rarely play games on the internet, and moreover your 4 BluRay players suggets you rarely torrent either.

    In short, it's no surprise you don't see the downsides of NAT. Meanwhile the rest of us who do required user level end-to-end net connectivity know that NAT is the devil and needs to die for the sake of the web. When you find yourself unable to use the latest applications and/or protocols, you will come to realize this too.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!