How Netflix Eats the Internet

pacopico writes "Every night, Netflix accounts for about one-third of the downstream Internet traffic in North America, dwarfing all of its major rivals combined. Bloomberg Businessweek has a story detailing the computer science behind the streaming site. It digs into Netflix's heavy use of AWS and its open-source tools like Chaos Kong and Asgard, which the Obama administration apparently used during the campaign. Story seems to suggest that the TV networks will have an awful time mimicking what Netflix has done."

Comments

Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still too much content I want that Netflix does not have available for streaming, making it not worth the price.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[h4rr4r]

I feel that way about cable.
Too much content I don't want, advertising, and shows are played via some schedule instead of streamed when I want. Sure there are workarounds like DVRs, but that is just a bandaid on a huge gaping wound.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[CanEHdian]

There is still too much content I want that Netflix does not have available for streaming, making it not worth the price.

So you're not even counting towards that 33.33% of traffic. But a lot of people do and they are *paying* for this content.

Lots of demeritz to Starz, who started this "we're toooooo posh for Netflix" and now the other MAFIAA outfits Warner Bros. and MGM and Universal that will drive people to pirate their content.

If they think that people will subscribe to 10 different "streaming sites" like they do "cable packages", they are insane.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[ndavis]

I feel that way about cable. Too much content I don't want, advertising, and shows are played via some schedule instead of streamed when I want. Sure there are workarounds like DVRs, but that is just a bandaid on a huge gaping wound.

I love the DVR you pay the cable company more each month so you can watch shows when you want because they like money!

This is why I cancelled cable TV and purchased a $40 antenna for my house and now use Amazon Prime for streaming service.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[gl4ss]

I feel that way about cable.
Too much content I don't want, advertising, and shows are played via some schedule instead of streamed when I want. Sure there are workarounds like DVRs, but that is just a bandaid on a huge gaping wound.

well imagine if the content on netflix what americans had on cable in 2006 and you'll have nordic netflix! like 3 seasons of mythbusters! WHEEEE!

(yeah I should stop being lazy and cancel my sub, the reason for the poor 3rd party content on the netflix over here is that the americans who own the shows sold 'em on exclusivy deals to the domestic networks over here.. so netflix doesn't have rights to show 'em..)

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[kwerle]

If they think that people will subscribe to 10 different "streaming sites" like they do "cable packages", they are insane.

The sad thing is that they already do. Folks are used to paying multiple providers for content - and/or paying those providers for multiple packages. I don't think the internet will end up being any different.

Sad, but I'm afraid that's the way it's gonna go.

Hell, how many people have huge numbers of streams replacing what used to be the telephone? Email, twitter, facebook, their cell phone, their landline, text messages, etc.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[edawstwin]

$8 is less than the cost of a matinee movie, and that's too much to pay monthly for potentially thousands of hours of video?

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not on Netflix, you're not in business.

Everyone I know has Netflix. It has become like having a Facebook account and a Gmail address.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[h4rr4r]

They can think that all they want. Not gonna happen.

I can always wait for DVDs.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[gameboyhippo]

A agree 200%. I broke AT&T's flowchart when they tried to save me as a cable TV customer. They didn't get the concept that cable TV was old and antiquated. In fact the rep was so confused that she had to get her manager. Now with Google Fiber coming to town, their Internet will be old and antiquated. It's like they just want to roll over and play dead.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[MightyYar]

I can't imagine running out of stuff to see on Netflix, but then I only watch about a half hour or so of TV a day. Don't get me wrong, I still waste brain cells via internet instead of the boob tube... it's just that I find Netflix to be cavernous in terms of content.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[interkin3tic]

Such as?

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[superslacker87]

I pay for Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, NHL Center Ice, and per episode subscription for the few TV shows that I consider not worth waiting for to have the season released for "free" to the aforementioned services when they are not available on Hulu. I still save more doing it this way than I would spending money for over 1000 channels I have no desire to pay for or watch.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[hedwards]

The main reason that my parents still have a satellite is sports. MLB sells their online package, but you can't see local market games on it until after the point where it's worth watching. The price is reasonable, but because it's only really useful for seeing out of market games, it's not something that somebody who likes the home team is likely to be able to get much use out of.

Personally, I don't really care, I rarely watch new programming and when I do, I'm willing to wait a week to see it online.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[hedwards]

Yes, but for $8 a month you can get access to the entire DVD catalog, so $8 for the streaming library which is tiny comparatively speaking is way too much money.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Netflix, but I have neither a Facebook nor a Gmail account. So, what's your point?

Re: Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

mediahint.com

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no DVD slot on my iPhone, or my wife's iPad mini.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[edawstwin]

With streaming, you're paying for instant access. Yes, you can get any DVD from them for $8 a month, and you have to wait, at minimum, two days after you select your title, to arrive. Then you have to return it before they'll ship another. That's a big inconvenience compared to streaming. I also am on the DVD plan, but I consider it a nice addition to streaming, not the main draw. If you were just on the $8 DVD plan, you could, at most, watch about 40 hours a month (a four hour TV disc every three days). With streaming, you can watch a significant portion of their catalog 24/7 all month. The value there is enormous.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Digicrat]

I love how the cable companies (ie:Comcast) can call me up offering me a Cable/Internet package for $70/month, only $5 more than what I nominally pay for Internet only ... but flat out refuse to tell me what the actual cost would be after taxes/fees (I was literally told that I should sign up and can cancel it after the first month if I don't like what the taxes are). I'd gladly pay an extra $5-10/mo for full cable TV access ... but in reality it's more like 20-40 after taxes and fees (which largely don't apply to Internet-only service). /rant

And those are additional reasons why Netflix+Antenna+MythTV > Cable TV

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[wonkey_monkey]

There is still too much content I want that Netflix does not have available for streaming, making it not worth the price to me, but I'm just one person whose opinion doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things, and certainly doesn't add anything to this discussion.

FTFY.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently that you are very lonely.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anubis IV]

I'll readily grant that Netflix, just like pretty much every other service ever created, is not necessarily for everyone. Particularly if you're into sports or want to watch stuff as it comes out, Netflix is probably not for you. But for those of us who prefer to wait until a show is a few seasons in or entirely completed before we even pick it up, Netflix is the best thing since P2P.

In contrast to cable plan I cut even before I started with Netflix, I now have:
1) Orders of magnitude more things to watch right now, and more of it in 1080p.
2) A subscription that costs 25% of what I used to pay ($8 vs. $30).
3) An ability to watch video while away from home.
4) No need to purchase/rent a separate device to timeshift or store content.
5) The ability to watch shows a season at a time without having to store that content or plan doing so in advance.
6) Recommendations that are actually really good for stuff I haven't seen yet.
7) No more commercial breaks or wasting time watching intros/credits on TV series.
8) No hidden fees, great customer service, and no contract.

Again, it's not for everyone, and for many people the best it can be is a supplementary service that may allow them to reduce the amount they spend elsewhere or else add some extra content that they couldn't get otherwise, but for many people, it can add a LOT of value over what cable has to offer while still being significantly cheaper.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that way about the Internet. Too many lolcats, porn and memes. Oh life...

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Roberticus]

I felt this at first, too, and I can still always find something when I'm in the mood to watch TV. But I will admit that I'm increasingly frustrated that I can't find some shows or movies that I'd like to see, and by things disappearing off the lineup. Still good, but not perfect.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[TWiTfan]

Starz content on Netflix sucked anyway. None of their stuff was in HD, and the prints looked like 3rd generation VHS dubs. Good riddance. Tough luck for whoever gets stuck with their half-assed shit.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[TWiTfan]

I can't imagine running out of stuff to see on Netflix

Agreed, every time I think I'm going to run out, I run into a new series or movie that I like. I'm watching that BBC series "Copper" right now. Would probably never have discovered it without Netflix.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[TWiTfan]

Isn't that a disclaimer appropriate for pretty much everything said on /.? Well, except for what *I* say, of course.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[hedwards]

Considering how tiny the selection is, it's a moot point. It doesn't seem to matter whether one likes new or old, they're both gimped in terms of selection. And it doesn't seem to improve if you're interested in more obscure movies.

Bottom line is that you don't get $8 worth of service, unless you've got weird tastes. And certainly not enough to justify them taking the savings on warehouse and postage and keeping it for themselves.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, there's one DVR, called SickBeard, which is much more than a bandaid. It's a can of spray-on plasti-skin. Wound, begone!

What the 'beard and the 'potato have shown me, is that when Hollywood went out of business and people had to fend for themselves, big progress happened. People originally just wanted their Year-2000 tech back, as digital cable and the online stores like Apple's, had been somewhat of a technological regression. What the pirates were doing, wasn't originally meant to be progress; it as just a restoration.

But innovation happened, and now the goalposts have moved. If iTunes were to modernize so that you could use a web browser instead of a weirdo proprietary unported client, the result is something that would have been good enough ten years ago. I think most people would ok with iTunes, or say, with a non-Flash Amazon prime, or a non-Silverlight Netflix.

But now the minimum standard for Hollywood to get back into the game, is that they'd need to be automatically third-party searchable and have APIs, with customers being able to initial downloads using some standard API instead of the store's own user-interface. I'm still ok with going to someone's website and buying a video, but now it's clear that's not how it should be. I should just be entering into my standard open source client, my bid for how much I'm willing to pay for the video or series or per-gigabyte or whatever, and it talks to their server and buys it for me (without me ever having "see" the store) and then gets sorted and processed by my tools.

If Hollywood hadn't closed, no one would have had to use the 'beard and 'potato and standards wouldn't be so high. But they left the scene and things happened in vaccuum, expecations and standards have risen, and it's going to be even harder to get back into the game. The lesson: never say "fuck off, we don't want your money," not even temporarily. Hollywood thought they could do that for a decade or so (a lot of think they might come back and try to do business again, sometime around 2015-2020), but that was a terrible mistake. They never should have completely left; they should have dragged it out with long negotiations, minor annoyances, etc. They should have taken the money and had a "processing error" or taken the money and delivered the content but with a few minor bugs, or done anything they could have, to make people think they were still participating and relevant and that tech couldn't move on without them. But they didn't, and now they're actually going to have to work hard.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[JakeBurn]

I feel the same way. I think a lot of people are just too stuck up to enjoy shows that aren't blockbuster, AAA quality TV. My hobby is map making and scripting for games I play and I usually have something playing on a secondary monitor whenever I'm coding. Just finished watching Continuum and thought it was great. There have been a couple times I thought about canceling over the last five years but I always find something interesting by searching through the different sections and stick around.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[ebno-10db]

Everyone I know has Netflix. It has become like having a Facebook account and a Gmail address.

Apparently that you are very lonely.

Note to inveterate Slashdotters: there is a form of inter-human communication that involves no electronics. It's an arcane technique sometimes called "in person" or "face to face". It does require you to be in actually proximity to the other person but has certain advantages. For instance, audio and video quality are exceptional. It can also allow for "tactile communication". This is particularly desirable when meeting a member of ... never mind, in Slashdot that would get me rated "-1: Absurd Fantasy".

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[prelelat]

Well it is a very important point though when you think about it. If you are stuck between buying a cable subscription and getting netflix and you want something like sports your kind of stuck getting cable. Some of the major sports have subscription based viewing but I think the MLB one is the only one that covers a substantial amount of live games(home and away) but you still have to pay around 100 bucks for their service.

This will change but it doesn't change the fact that netflix has a limited number of sports on it and as far as I'm aware none of them are live. That can make netflix a no go for a lot of people who are stuck choosing between one or the other. Personally I don't watch much for sports so netflix and other services work swimmingly for me.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[edawstwin]

Weird tastes? Just since the beginning of the year I have watched (by streaming) the following: Cheers, The Office, Breaking Bad, Psych, Burn Notice, Frasier, Archer, several not-very-obscure British series (Sherlock, etc...), and perhaps a dozen mainstream (made actual money when theatrically released) movies, Hunger Games and MI:4 included. I see nothing "weird" in that list. Perhaps you need to revisit Netflix.com.

The "savings on warehouse and postage" they "keep for themselves" is put towards the enormous bandwidth that this article is about, plus some profit that companies are supposed to make for their shareholders.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cablevision took $7 off my bill from going from Internet only to Internet + TV. They're paying me to send me TV. I guess upping their subscriber numbers is that big of a deal to them?

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[kimvette]

> Tough luck for whoever gets stuck with their half-assed shit.

What else would you expect from Sony?

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Calydor]

It's a matter of lock-in. By giving you this package the way they did they insure themselves against the situation where you personally aren't interested in TV, but maybe next month you meet the girl of your dreams, a single mother with a three year old kid. NOW you suddenly want TV, and Cablevision's competitor has this really neat bundled offer ...

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misunderstood the GP's point about content that's not available on streaming. Perhaps he meant that he prefers the disc service.

I don't have cable TV. I pay for premium internet service, and I currently pay for a 4-disc plan with no streaming. I've apparently watched and returned 532 DVDs in the past 40 months (includes 20 damaged discs), and that also includes several months when I tried using streaming only. I was on a 3-disc plan for the vast majority of that time, but I upgraded to 4-discs when the post office started occasionally delivering my DVDs to my neighbor.

I would gladly pay $40/mo for a streaming-only plan if it included the entire DVD library, but the current $10/mo plan is worthless to me because most of the shows I want to watch aren't available on streaming, and those that are usually have 1-2 episodes/season that aren't available on streaming. And to add insult to injury, Netflix apparently no longer even tells you which episodes aren't available on streaming (they just pretend they don't exist).

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[MightyYar]

Agreed on the "disappearing" thing. We watched half a movie, came back the next day to finish it and it was gone! Still, my queue is growing, not shrinking.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

$8 is less than the cost of a matinee movie, and that's too much to pay monthly for potentially thousands of hours of video?

If it's not video of your mother then it's not worth it.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you greatly underestimate the cost of those warehouses and the employees that have to open and stuff those envelopes.

And I rarely find things that I want to watch on the instant queue, most of the time my only option is to get them on disc. The collection itself is much larger in the DVD section than the live streaming section, so obviously, there's more service being provided with discs.

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

*Shameless plug* recommend you sign up to Unblock-US dot com so then you can CHOOSE which netflix country you'd like to watch. I use it to get the US netflix, because it has a much better selection than UK netflix. I switched over and haven't looked back. Screw all these fooking regional deals, just short-circuit it :D

Disclaimer: I don't work for Unblock-us, I'm just a happy customer (5 USD/mo)

Re:Still not good enough for me.

[nobodie]

When I moved back to the US we bought a $400 Vizio internet enabled TV, Verizon FIOS internet service and..... that was it. I got a free pentium D computer from work and installed fedora with xmbc, what else do I need?

Re:Is Netflix

[h4rr4r]

No, they pay their ISP bills like everyone else.

Just like eating an elephant

[Joehonkie]

One byte at a time?

Re:Just like eating an elephant

[mrops]

Oh just this once I wish they have tons of useless patents preventing the "man" from doing this easily.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs only have so much capacity to sell though.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid comment -- especially for someone highjacking my /. name.

Don't worry about the networks...

[MitchDev]

They'll use their bought and paid for congress critters to get Netflix legislated to death and use their industry connections to get even more content taken away from Netflix to keep them under control...

Re:Don't worry about the networks...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a "sad but true" mod.

Re:Don't worry about the networks...

[SilentStaid]

You underestimate the power of Netflix and the demand that customers have for it. Networks will adapt, or die. Sure, they might adapt in a way we don't like (I.E. putting out their own slightly worse version where they can still sell advert space like Hulu) but video streaming, on demand, is here to stay.

"You can't stop the signal." ~ Mr. Universe.

Re:Don't worry about the networks...

[DerekLyons]

and use their industry connections to get even more content taken away from Netflix to keep them under control

"Industry connections" aren't stupid - if Netflix offers a better deal, they're going with Netflix. If those "connections" do decide to be stupid, they do so knowing full well there's raftloads of independents snapping at their heels.

Re:Don't worry about the networks...

[mu51c10rd]

You underestimate the power of Netflix and the demand that customers have for it.

Many do...it was a wakeup call for the cable/satellite operators when Disney signed with them. Disney is one of the kings of content...and they see something more valuable in Netflix than their current (soon to be previous) contract with the Starz cable channel. Netflix charges 8 dollars a month for offering more content than many people who pay 100 dollars a month get from their cable subscription.

Re:Don't worry about the networks...

[schlachter]

And once that has happened, they will buy them and leverage their technology and user base.

Re:Don't worry about the networks...

[MitchDev]

Not if the content companies yank all the rights...

The TV networks have had an awful time adapting fo

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing TV networks to Netflix is like comparing an ancient Spartan soldier to a modern, fully armed, US Marine.

Re:Is Netflix

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Basically taking advantage of an infrastructure it doesn't pay for?

If anything(given that buildout is expensive, and keeping a run of either copper or fiber maintained and backhoe-free isn't free), Netflix is, in addition to paying its bandwidth bills just like everybody else, providing the rather valuable service of giving millions of customers a reason to buy more bandwidth.

Given the steady advances in cramming bits over lines, even shitty legacy copper, the more bandwidth your customers want to buy, the more bandwidth you get to sell per fixed-cost(rights of way, keeping the lights on at HQ, dudes in bucket trucks, etc.)

Re:Is Netflix

[sconeu]

And we are paying for that downstream bandwidth. Netflix, I'm sure, pays an insane amount to their ISP for the bandwidth they use.

You are using the same logic that AT&T used when they wanted their "google tax".

I heard other numbers

[slashmydots]

I just heard another news story that said it's 3% of all internet traffic in the US at night. That's a pretty big discrepancy. Given all other services like youtube and Hulu and all peer to peer, I seriously doubt it's 1/3. It probably is 3%.

Re:I heard other numbers

[SJHillman]

YouTube - You watch a short, low quality video, then spend a little time browsing for another video.
Netflix - You are continuously streaming high quality video for anywhere from 20 minutes (30 min TV show) to 2+ hours (movies).

YouTube might have more users at any given time, but it's completely plausible that Netflix utterly crushes it in terms of how much bandwidth is used. Given that Hulu, which is probably Netflix's single largest competitor, posted around 1/5 the revenues for 2012, it's a drop in the bucket compared to Netflix... and Netflix is more friendly to people that want to continuously watch episodes/movies due to a lack of commercial breaks.

Re:I heard other numbers

[ArcadeMan]

And they're talking about North America. You have to take into account that things like Hulu are USA-only but Netflix is available in Canada. Granted, the selection pales compared to the USA version, but at least it's available.

Re:I heard other numbers

[al.caughey]

I though Justin Beiber accounted for 50% of all of the network traffic

Re:I heard other numbers

[Threni]

YouTube spends most of its time saying 'buffering'; something I've never experienced with netflix. That's got to save a lot of bandwidth.

Re:I heard other numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube + XBMC + Playlist = "play from here" = me watching hours of content in high quality from YouTube all at once.

Re:I heard other numbers

[SJHillman]

And do you really think a significant portion of the population does that compared to how many people can fire up Netflix on their PC, laptop, Wii, phone, smart TV, etc, etc, etc?

Re:I heard other numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Try switching to RealPlayer

Re:I heard other numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky you. I have FiOS (75Mbps download) and Netflix becomes unwatchable quite often. Not that it matters to them since they still get my monthly subscription fee.

Re:I heard other numbers

[f()rK()_Bomb]

I find this strange. Youtube never needs to buffer for me, no matter the stream or quality.

Re:I heard other numbers

[Bengie]

Gotta love your ISP throttling.

Re:Is Netflix

[_KiTA_]

ISPs only have so much capacity to sell though.

And Netflix is buying what ISPs are selling. And more importantly, Netflix's customers are buying their connections.

I hear this every so often since I used to work at an ISP. Basically the ISPs are longing for the days where they could sell a grandma a 10 meg connection for $100 a month and watch her use 100kb of bandwidth a day when she checks her email and looks up recipies.

Granted, we do have a problem with network saturation, where ISPs sell product they do not own, but that's their own fault, not Netflix nor their customers.

Re:Is Netflix

[magic maverick]

So they should raise their prices then?! Or maybe put down some more pipes?
If an ISP has a problem with its customers using bandwidth, they really have three options:
1) Raise prices per/MB; 2) Get more bandwidth; 3) Get rid of customers who use a lot of bandwidth. It seems that many ISPs want to do only 1 and 3, where the logical thing is to do 2 (because bandwidth usage will only increase in the future, and and ISP that can provide it, will have an edge of those that can't).

Re:Is Netflix

[pitchpipe]

Is Netflix basically taking advantage of an infrastructure it doesn't pay for?

Nope. I'm taking advantage of an infrastructure that I pay for. I apologize for not contributing more to the CEOs of America, but I'm sure they'll find a way to get their money on my cash, one way or another.

You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be more than happy to be able to actually download movies from Netflix during non peak times to watch at some other time. This would allow spreading out the bandwidth over the course of a day instead of everyone streaming at peak times such as 7PM EST,CST,PST

Streaming services will continue to degrade our bandwidth unless we are given the ability to download movies\shows during off hours to watch later.

Re:You know...

[h4rr4r]

Better idea just upgrade the internet connections.

I don't want to decide what I am going to watch hours in advance. I have no interest in leaving some machine on burning power to record a show for later.

Re:You know...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I would be more than happy to be able to actually download movies from Netflix during non peak times to watch at some other time. This would allow spreading out the bandwidth over the course of a day instead of everyone streaming at peak times such as 7PM EST,CST,PST

Streaming services will continue to degrade our bandwidth unless we are given the ability to download movies\shows during off hours to watch later.

But that would disrupt the hilarious consensual hallucination among the 'content' people that 'streaming' isn't actually just a form of 'downloading' where you don't bother to write things to the disk! We can't have that!

It is absolutely necessary that 'streaming' and 'downloading' be fundamentally different, because, um, 'broadcasting' and 'selling VHS tapes' were fundamentally different! That's why! Also, if your video decoder was sold as a 'computer' and connects to an LCD panel that the salesman called a 'monitor', that's entirely different than if your video decoder is called a 'set top box' and is connected to an LCD panel called a 'TV'. Because, because, something.

Re:You know...

[ArcadeMan]

My AppleTV is connected to a computer-only LCD panel (it only has VGA, DVI and HDMI inputs, no built-in tuner).

I wonder what kind of comments I'd get about my setup from those "content people".

Re:You know...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You... can't... don't... should... not... be.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be more than happy to be able to actually download movies from Netflix during non peak times to watch at some other time. This would allow spreading out the bandwidth over the course of a day instead of everyone streaming at peak times such as 7PM EST,CST,PST

Streaming services will continue to degrade our bandwidth unless we are given the ability to download movies\shows during off hours to watch later.

What you need is .... TiVo for NetFlix!

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I do that already!

Re:You know...

[mu51c10rd]

What you need is .... TiVo for NetFlix!
Um...you mean PlayLater?

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is absolutely necessary that 'streaming' and 'downloading' be fundamentally different, because, um, 'broadcasting' and 'selling VHS tapes' were fundamentally different! That's why! Also, if your video decoder was sold as a 'computer' and connects to an LCD panel that the salesman called a 'monitor', that's entirely different than if your video decoder is called a 'set top box' and is connected to an LCD panel called a 'TV'. Because, because, something.

I once confused Samsung's customer support line when I called about an issue with hooking up my Wii via component cables (switching inputs and/or power cycling sometimes made it just show a black screen for a 480p signal) because I asked for the "TV" division but the screen was actually a "monitor".

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do this all the time with PlayLater.

Re:You know...

[Danathar]

Not just that, i'd like to be able to cache a whole hour of a show on my mobile device so that I could get most of the show on a fast wifi connection and then when I'm sitting in traffic (NOT DRIVING) with the carpool and the cell network is clogged I can watch what I cached.

Re:You know...

[Secret Agent Man]

It's actually quite a bizarre parallel to the time-shifting arguments posed to TV shows.

Re:You know...

[jandrese]

From what I understand, the law actually treats streaming and downloading differently, which is why content producers make such a big deal over it.

Re:You know...

[Sebastopol]

non peak time? if/when netflix goes global there will be no such thing.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are pretty big differences between the technologies you mention.

TVs tend to have a lot of extra signal processing that monitors lack. This introduces more latency in the output which is sometimes mitigated by putting your TV into "game mode". Monitors have no need of such things since most computers have graphics chipsets that do a far better job for a much lower cost in latency.

Codecs on a computers usually have a lot of extra processing to clean up encoding artifacts which set top boxes lack. Set top boxes rely on the TVs processing to clean things up. The processing done by codecs on a computer tends to be of significantly higher quality than a set top box, purely because set top boxes don't have as much processing power behind them in order to make them more affordable. The only reason to disable the extra processing on a PC is if your watching ultra high quality video (2k or higher) while also doing heavy processor work like digital artwork.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait for someone to patent it and the PTO to ignore the obvious nature of TIVO-for-streaming.

Re:You know...

[fazookus]

I would be more than happy to be able to actually download movies from Netflix during non peak times to watch at some other time. This would allow spreading out the bandwidth over the course of a day instead of everyone streaming at peak times such as 7PM EST,CST,PST

Streaming services will continue to degrade our bandwidth unless we are given the ability to download movies\shows during off hours to watch later.

Impossible, it would never work. Oh, well, there's http://store.steampowered.com/, which does what you're thinking of... damn, there's money to be made in there somewhere...

Re:Is Netflix

[Xipher]

Actually Netflix is trying to get past transit ISPs as much as possible via peering. Provide free peering and caching appliances to ISPs, they get their content closer to the customer, and cut down their transit costs.

Re:Is Netflix

[lightknight]

It helps if you upgrade your equipment, rather than look for the world's greatest ROI on 10 Mb hubs...

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[SJHillman]

If I've learned anything from Sid Meier, it's that spearmen are damned tough bastards to beat when they want to hold their ground.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Comparing TV networks to Netflix is like comparing an ancient Spartan soldier to a modern, fully armed, US Marine.

You give the TV guys far too much credit. Your hypothetical Spartan soldier would, of course, be doomed by inferior technology; but it is unlikely that he would resort to petulant litigation or pernicious lobbying.

Re:But that begs the question...

[MatrixCubed]

Of course. The internet (not unlike everything else) tastes like chicken.

Re:Is Netflix

[hedwards]

Precisely, commercial bandwidth is one of the few areas where capitalism seems to be working. The price has come down substantially over the last decade. If they can't afford to provide what Netflix needs, then they should raise the rates and build out the infrastructure.

Problem solved.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[MightyYar]

He learned that from the British.

Netflix Canada

[ArcadeMan]

It eats the Internet too, eh?

Re:Netflix Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

While the Internet's moans of pleasure reverberate in the tubes.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely, commercial bandwidth is one of the few areas where capitalism seems to be working. The price has come down substantially over the last decade.

Don't confuse capitalism and technology. The price has come down even more in some less capitalist countries.

Re:Is Netflix

[nine-times]

I agree. To create an analogous situation with something other than Internet service, imagine Microsoft started going around to every business running Windows/Exchange, saying, "Hey, we deserve some of your profits. You're using our products to make money, and it's totally unfair that we don't get a cut." That'd be ridiculous,right? Microsoft offered a product, and you bought it according to their terms. If you think they deserve a percentage simply because you use their product to make money, then where does it end? Why can't 3M come after you for a percentage because you use post-its.

Even in talking about Internet service, why aren't ISPs going after every company with a website? I work for a company with a website, and we get business through the internet. We use our Internet connection to conduct our business. Should our ISP be able to come after us for a percentage of profits, just because we make money by using out Internet connection?

No. We pay for out internet connection. We pay for our hosting. Our customers pay for their internet connections. That's all the ISPs can lay claim to: the charges for providing Internet service.

Really, the only difference with Netflix is they end up being a competitor to ISPs who also provide Cable service. Well boo-fricking-hoo.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

And we are paying for that downstream bandwidth. Netflix, I'm sure, pays an insane amount to their ISP for the bandwidth they use.

You are using the same logic that AT&T used when they wanted their "google tax".

If Netflix is smart, they'd would hook into various Internet exchanges to reduce their transit/ISP fees.

If the last-mile ISPs were smart, they'd install Netflix's appliance locally and reduce their bandwidth:

https://www.netflix.com/openconnect

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[SilentStaid]

You realize you're talking about Grecian society that quite literally gave us those things, right?

Flix is so retro

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffffft ! That's so retro. Torrent / Plex is more efficient and flexible. Combined with the fact I torrent off Chuck'E Cheese / McDonald's / whatever WIFI and I get to take my kids out, the whole experience is where value's at. Besides, Netflix content sucks.

they eat it with CDN

[Anonymous Coward]

last I heard they were using Limelight as CDN. Anyone who thinks they are streaming directly to users from amazon is delusional.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, after you've pounded the opposing civilizations into the dust, they have one city left with "one" population, then they produce a "warrior" unit that takes out your stealth fighter. WTF?

Sloppy head line

[Anonymous Coward]

North America is not the internet merely an uncivilsed backwater of it.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm pretty sure that Athens did a lot more of the heavy lifting on that side of things. They also had perks like 'culture' and 'occasionally not existing in a state of total war'; but their legal and political shenanigans are quite legendary.

Re:Is Netflix

[hoxford]

Just like Akamai and others were doing 13 years ago...

duh....

[Anonymous Coward]

'tv networks' are still in the screaming MINE MINE MINE MINE phase...

they won't even try doing what netflix has done. it won't even occour to them until they're broke and gone.

i hope cbs and fox go cable only over their hissyfit about aereo. and i hope they go alacarte so i don't have to pay for that shit. and then i hope they go bankrupt because nobody watches that obsolete shit.

its the only way they will learn.

Netflix should then be on...

[unixisc]

Internet2. That would have the bandwidth to do everything they need.

Re:Is Netflix

[Attila Dimedici]

Netflix paid Akamai to do this for them, although I believe they changed from Akamai last year (I am not sure if they went with another vendor, or if they started doing it themselves).

When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[tepples]

I pay for Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, NHL Center Ice

What do you do for NHL games that are blacked out of NHL Center Ice because they are shown on national or regional cable television? Last year the freaking finals were shown on what is now NBC Sports Network, a cable channel.

Re:When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[superslacker87]

I live in Nebraska and follow the Bruins. During the regular season, if they are on NHLN or NBCSN, I usually just suck it up and don't watch unless I'm somewhere they're playing it in a restaurant. Right now, I'm listening to the games via Internet radio. Rest assured, if they get to the Finals, I'll be in a sports bar watching every game.

Re:When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[mrclisdue]

What do you do for NHL games that are blacked out of NHL Center Ice because they are shown on national or regional cable television? Last year the freaking finals were shown on what is now NBC Sports Network, a cable channel.

It may take some searching, but running xbmc>navi-x or 1channel, I've been able to find *most* games blacked-out on gamecenter. I cut the chord (satellite dish) 6 weeks ago and I'm not looking back, saving $100 per month....

cheers,

Re:When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[Anonymous Coward]

VPN services.

They are really good for getting around those inane blackout restrictions. I no longer have cable and wanted a way to stream baseball games. The MLB.TV package does this very well, but wouldn't allow me to stream my local teams (kinda the most important). But for an extra $6/mo, I connect to a VPN and stream from another part of the country. For nationally-broadcast games where it's blacked out across the country, they have foreign servers. As a bonus, I get to watch BBC iPlayer.

Re:When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[Zordak]

What do you do for NHL games that are blacked out of NHL Center Ice because they are shown on national or regional cable television?

What I usually do in that situation is not watch hockey. But honestly, that's my response to most situations.

Re:When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, all NHL playoff games are broadcast nationally, either via TSN or CBC.
Centre Ice is useless in Canada during the playoffs.. Luckily CBC is available via OTA HD in most major cities, so if you've cut the cord you can still see about half the games (and all of the finals).

Re:When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to a sports bar or don't watch that way you can hurt the cable company and the boneheaded content provider (maybe they're the same in this case i.e. NBC/Comcast) when they lose a subscriber as well as the Nelson rating.

Re:When the Stanley Cup finals are blacked out

[Nexzus]

He probably meant GameCenter. CenterIce is the NHL's cable package offering out of market games.

Regardless, GameCenter didn't black out the 4 Canucks playoff games (all I cared about) in Germany, which is where it looked like my network was.

The absurdity of having to VPN into Germany to watch a hockey game being played at an arena 15 minutes from where I live was not lost on me.

Bad codecs

[jensend]

If they used modern H.264 and AAC encoders rather than whatever outdated VC.1 and WMA encoders they're using, they could cut that bandwidth use by a third, reducing their costs and improving the customer experience tremendously. Does anybody know why they haven't already done this?

Re:Bad codecs

[jensend]

BTW I believe their streams for iOS, PS3, etc are h.264 these days, but their desktop Silverlight player still uses VC-1 last I heard.

Re:Bad codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

Slow CPUs and also hardware without these protocols installed.

Re:Bad codecs

[ArcadeMan]

I don't think they're sending VC.1 or WMA to all the iOS devices, the PS3, the Wii, etc.

Re:Bad codecs

[DerekLyons]

Probably because they're limited by the vast array of third party devices their streams must play on. Adding different codecs to the mix would increase their operational costs and complexity even as it reduced their bandwidth costs... so it's not clear a priori that such a switch is beneficial overall.

To know that for certain, we'd need their internal numbers - and they aren't giving those - up.

Re:Bad codecs

[jandrese]

It depends a bit on what the hardware supports on the customer side. You don't want it end up like the fansub community where everybody flocked to the most efficient encoder that absolutely no hardware decoders support, trapping the videos on computer screens.

Re:Bad codecs

[Secret Agent Man]

Aren't they limited by encoders, etc. that support DRM? Not a slam against DRM or anything here, honest answer to the OP's question.

Re:Bad codecs

[adolf]

What does an encoder have to do with DRM?

Re:Bad codecs

[ArsonSmith]

I RTFA'd sorry, this is something they do regularly. Every time there is a new device that supports netflix on a different resolution or format they transcode the content to fit.

Re:Is Netflix

[postbigbang]

Which is why distributing through AWS also makes sense. Tumblr and others do the same thing. It's called: most efficient CDN you can construct. And with luck, it will eat Comcast/xFinity's lunch, along with a long list of broadband cable provider's meals. Yes, you still need the last mile. No, you don't need the goofy TV signal infrastructure at 720p on a good day. Free your cable: use all of the bandwidth for packets.

Blackouts

[tepples]

I can always wait for DVDs.

Including DVDs of sporting events that are blacked out of the league's online service because they are shown on national or regional cable?

Re:Blackouts

[h4rr4r]

I think I have stated before that I just go to the bar.

I am not that into sports. I will certainly not pay an amount that could buy me many live tickets to watch a sport on tv.

Re:Blackouts

[Anonymous Coward]

In the context of Netflix streaming vs Netflix DVD by mail I'm going to guess that no, it does not include sporting events.

Re:Is Netflix

[clarkn0va]

I run a small hobby ISP and I can have effectively as much bandwidth as I'm willing to pay for, or rather, as much as my customers are willing to pay for.

As a somebody selling internet access, I love Netflix and any other online service that give my potential customers a chance to blow through the incumbent telco's artificially low transfer caps (I don't put caps on my service). I can't think of another business where the typical vendor prefers that his customer use less of the product he sells. It makes no sense to me.

Re:Is Netflix

[Synerg1y]

Really, the only difference with Netflix is they end up being a competitor to ISPs who also provide Cable service. Well boo-fricking-hoo.

+100 Internets to you good sir.

Add a DVD slot to your Mac

[tepples]

You appear to be in an Apple household. There's a DVD slot on Macs until very recently, and even if not, you can add a DVD slot by buying a USB DVD burner for about $30 on NewEgg.

Re:Add a DVD slot to your Mac

[hedwards]

I own something like that and rarely use it. But, it's a viable option for those that own devices without the slot. I think one drive for the entire household is likely enough.

Re:Add a DVD slot to your Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

No Macs. No other Apple products at all in fact.

And who wants to add a big honking DVD player hanging off their iPhone or iPad mini? Do you work for Sony or something?

Re:Add a DVD slot to your Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't own a single apple device and I haven't used a removable plastic platter to watch movies in years.

Re:Is Netflix

[ArhcAngel]

imagine Microsoft started going around to every business running Windows/Exchange, saying, "Hey, we deserve some of your profits. You're using our products to make money, and it's totally unfair that we don't get a cut." That'd be ridiculous,right? Microsoft offered a product, and you bought it according to their terms. If you think they deserve a percentage simply because you use their product to make money, then where does it end? Why can't 3M come after you for a percentage because you use post-its.

Well they did do something analogous to this when they were doing site licensing. I don't know if they still get away with the practice but at one time they charged a per desktop license fee. Not a per installed copy mind you...they quite literally charged per machine on the premises and it did not matter if it was running a MS product or not. If the entire marketing dept. was using Macs they still got charged for a Windows license for every Mac. Engineering group all running on Sun Sparc? doesn't matter they all get charged a license.

Sports are the key

[mu51c10rd]

If any sports franchise (major league, NCAA, etc.) were to get a streaming contract that doesn't require a cable/satellite subscription, it would be the beginning of the end. I think they realize that, and is why they lock down things like ESPN3 or NFL Gametime, etc. Sports is where the revenue is for the operators...not channels like Syfy.

Re:Sports are the key

[Ken D]

Sports is also their weakness.
Cable companies pay a fortune for sports content, a fortune that they then ask their customers to pay. Which is one of the reasons I'm a non-sports consuming *former* customer.
At some point you get tired of paying more for less watchable content.

Re:Sports are the key

[fermion]

They tried to do some NCAAstreaming stuff locally. It failed. Broadcast and cable TV is too much of a profit center for sports. Doing anything to jeopardize that relationship would be death for the sports. Right now, sports is the only thing that keeps men watching TV in real time, so TV needs sports, and TV would be very unhappy if there were other ways to consume sports inexpensively.

Re:Sports are the key

[ForestHill]

You mean like this? http://www.apple.com/appletv/whats-on/#mlb http://www.apple.com/appletv/whats-on/#nba http://www.apple.com/appletv/whats-on/#nhl

Re:Sports are the key

[mu51c10rd]

Exactly like that. Except the MLB and NHL are the only two that allow live games...and their apps are not ubiquitous quite yet. NBA and NFL only replay games and use live updating of scores and statistics.

Re:Sports are the key

[Nexzus]

NHL, MLB and NFL have live internet streams, and the one I use(d), NHL for my local Vancouver Canucks, has geo-IP lockouts to "protect" the broadcasters.

A VPN tunnel down into Seattle solved that issue pretty quickly, despite their scary warning.

Re:Sports are the key

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that big of a league, but it has connections to the NHL but the NLL streams all thier games live on youtube/live and has them historically banked for later viewing.

Re:Sports are the key

[rocket rancher]

Indeed. But streaming sports is available right now, if only for a subset of sports. I get all the streaming sports I need from Bein Sports, which for me amounts to the MotoGP and World Superbike races. They stream it from their site on a delay for free, or offer it up live for a modest fee. It's only a matter of time before an American entrepreneur puts together a similar service and inks a deal with the US-based sports-entertainment complex. Imagine being able to watch any game anywhere, anytime, on the device of your choice, free of commercial interruption. The non-sports entertainment complex was entrenched for decades, but it is all but gone, thanks to Netflix- and Hulu-like streamers. If Aereo is successful in the defense of their business model, they will be the first nail in the coffin, and Google is going to provide the rest. Google' acquisition of youtube several years ago and their recent announcement of subscription-based channels is, realistically, the death-knell for broadcast content on the planet.

Re:Sports are the key

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that live sports is the last bastion of cable. However MLB.tv is, for me, a better experience than cable. Unfortunatly my IP address has to plan a trip oversees any time I want to watch an in market game. I think that eventually this restriction to will go away.

Is BitTorrent still using 35-40%?

[billstewart]

It's possible that that figure was only on Internet2, which has mostly academic users. Or is Netflix using BitTorrent for their downloads?

Re:Is BitTorrent still using 35-40%?

[number6x]

Netflix should consider a bit torrent model. Serving pieces of movies from viewers who are already watching would reduce the strain on central servers.

Heck, if everyone put a netflix wifi box on their TV, we could have a netflix based alter-net to play with.

Re:Is BitTorrent still using 35-40%?

[vux984]

Netflix should consider a bit torrent model. Serving pieces of movies from viewers who are already watching would reduce the strain on central servers.

Given that for the most part netflix's objective is for the "central servers" to be situated in your local ISPs data center, netflix has already done one better.

What is netflix ?

[stooo]

What is netflix ?

Re:What is netflix ?

[ArcadeMan]

Forget about Netflix, the real question is: what is this "Internet" thing?

Re:What is netflix ?

[stooo]

"Sorry, Internet is not available in your country yet.
Enter your email & we'll let you know when Internet is available."

That's all i know about that "netflix". Segmented Internet. Not good.

Four failures on Netflix

[tepples]

Such as sports. If I were to replace cable TV with Netflix and NHL Center Ice, games shown on national or regional cable TV would be blacked out.

To be fair, let's limit it to scripted works more than a decade old. According to CanIStream.it, Netflix doesn't have the film Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night, the film Song of the South, the film Secret of the Incas, or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea.

Re:Four failures on Netflix

[suutar]

They appear to not have those in their disc catalog either. But who does? If I can't get it from anybody else, Netflix not having it doesn't seem like a substantial disadvantage.

Re:Four failures on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as sports. If I were to replace cable TV with Netflix and NHL Center Ice, games shown on national or regional cable TV would be blacked out.

Meh...there are VPN services available for as low as $4/mo that will allow you to get around those blackouts.

Re:Four failures on Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

lol sports. go fuck yourself. who cares to watch a bunch of overpaid morons throwing balls around. stop being a moron.

Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mail

[billstewart]

Back in the old days, when Netflix worked by mailing physical DVDs, their bandwidth was about 1/3 of the total bandwidth of the Internet. They had a much higher latency (~48 hours), but a huge amount of parallelism and 4GB packet sizes.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing TV networks to Netflix is like comparing an ancient Spartan soldier to a modern, fully armed, US Marine.

You mean the Spartan soldier that will sneak around, hide, and then throw a spear accurately to kill before the marine even knows where he is? Because Spartan soldiers were pretty good at that.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Try getting premium bandwidth in a datacenter. A lot of local providers want to charge $80 per 1Mbit/sec per month. $8000/month for 100Mbit seems insane.

Live sports and live political talk shows

[tepples]

Netflix charges 8 dollars a month for offering more content than many people who pay 100 dollars a month get from their cable subscription.

One household in my survey sample keeps cable TV around for NCAA football, NFL, NHL, and UFC. Another keeps cable TV around for MSNBC. Netflix doesn't offer such live programming.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Endo13]

Yeah that's pretty much what I was thinking. Live programming is the only thing keeping cable TV alive. Once that becomes available for streaming online, well, cable (and possibly satellite as well) is done.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Chris Mattern]

I don't like sports and I wouldn't get my news from TV programs if you paid me. I think the networks are in trouble with me.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[mu51c10rd]

I addressed this in a different post. Sports is the largest driver for TV right now. Once that goes streaming live...the old model is done. As for MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and Fox News all stream as I recall. MSNBC does not?

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[MitchDev]

al a carte channel selection, the very things Cable and Sat companies are terrified of...

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Anonymous Coward]

That particular lack of that content is a bonus in my book. unfortunately, for my cable package, to get a few other channels i have to also pay for sports channels that never get watched.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[tepples]

Call me a poor web searcher, but I couldn't find a link to an official stream on MSNBC's web site. The "Video" link near the top is to clips, not a live stream of the channel.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[mattack2]

I admit this is a tiny use case, but if you're streaming the news channels, you HAVE to watch the commercials (at least via the normal streams visible in a web browser). You can't buffer up ~30 minutes then FF through commercials/stories you don't care about.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Ryanrule]

well fuck those people.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Another keeps cable TV around for MSNBC. Netflix doesn't offer such live programming

I wouldn't put the value of MSNBC anywhere near an extra $50 to $100 per month. If anything important happens it will be on the radio and broadcast TV. And they'll mostly be reporting what they read online. First they came for the land line phones and I said nothing because I did not have a land line. Then they came for the cable TV and I said nothing because I did not have cable TV. And then I watched House of Cards.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why my parents ended up paying again for DirecTV after getting a Roku. They just had to have their fucking Fox News. I was hoping it would ween them off it, but nope, it just gets used when my nephew comes over and wants to watch Power Rangers now.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[wikdwarlock]

Might I suggest you investigate Aereo? They are working on, and legally defending, a service to stream live TV to their customers. Of course, this still is network content, but it's something.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Endo13]

That looks pretty cool. I just preregistered. Thanks.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Well gosh, since YOU don't like sports, that's some serious bad news for the networks. How can they possibly keep going?

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's only a licensing issue, not a technical one. Satellite and cable are done in a technical sense. It's only a matter of time. Expect increasing use of bandwidth caps to protect profit margins by placing a monetary penalty on subscribing to competing streaming services.

Re:Live sports and live political talk shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you don't really matter.

Re:Is Netflix

[Shaman]

FYI, 1 and 2 are mutually inclusive.

TV series episodes on the bus

[tepples]

Better idea just upgrade the internet connections.

Say you want to watch 24-minute episodes of a TV series on your 30-minute-each-way bus commute to and from work. To stream on the bus, you'd need an expensive cellular data plan. And it's expensive because there's a limit to how many cellular subscribers can be served at once.

I don't want to decide what I am going to watch hours in advance.

You do if you're watching a whole season of a TV series in order.

I have no interest in leaving some machine on burning power to record a show for later.

Even if you have no such interest, millions of pirates using BitTorrent have such interest.

Re:TV series episodes on the bus

[h4rr4r]

I already have such a plan. I can also rip DVDs.
More cellular subscribers can be served by making cells smaller. I am driving that sort of change with my usage.

Millions of pirates using BitTorrent can download their files right before they watch them with modern internet connections.

Re:TV series episodes on the bus

[tepples]

More cellular subscribers can be served by making cells smaller.

That's still easier said than done. It costs the carriers a lot of money to buy land and FCC approvals for cell towers.

Re:TV series episodes on the bus

[h4rr4r]

It costs them money to lose customers too.

One will do it and the rest will have to follow. Such is the nature of competition.

Re:TV series episodes on the bus

[Pubstar]

Just would like to say I have a T-Mobile unlimited plan with uncapped 4g without throttling for $55/month ($20 extra right now for the phone subsidy). I get full speed everywhere in Los Angeles, and can stream Netflix with almost no stopping for buffering. The only thing I can't do is tether, but I do it anyways and haven't had then say anything about it yet.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they charge for each postage machine too? Or did these companies simply over-report their desktop count because they were cautious or planning for near-future expansion (or just lazy/incompetent)?

Per "machine" wouldn't stand in court. Neither would per-computer-whether-it's-running-our-product-or-not. And an unenforceable contract is worth the price of the paper it's printed on.

Silent

[tepples]

My AppleTV is connected to a computer-only LCD panel (it only has VGA, DVI and HDMI inputs, no built-in tuner).

I thought computer-only LCD panels tended to lack audio output. Did you have Apple TV in mind before you bought your computer-only LCD panel to make sure it had an audio output?

Re:Silent

[ArcadeMan]

Some computer-only LCD panels do have audio support from the HDMI input port, but mine doesn't. Besides, my LCD was a gift and anyway I route the optical audio output to a line-level converter from monoprice and then to small powered speakers, into which I connect my headphones.

Re:Silent

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you invest in an amp and speakers that are separate from your TV. I have a set-up like this in my living room that utilizes an LCD projector and retractable screen that hangs from the ceiling.

Re:Silent

[rsborg]

My AppleTV is connected to a computer-only LCD panel (it only has VGA, DVI and HDMI inputs, no built-in tuner).

I thought computer-only LCD panels tended to lack audio output. Did you have Apple TV in mind before you bought your computer-only LCD panel to make sure it had an audio output?

My TV has shite speakers, and so I have a real sound system including a receiver. The HDMI inputs route through the receiver from the AppleTV (and cable box, and playstation) and push sound out to the speakers and video to the TV.

Does no one else do this? I've been doing this for years (though if there was a good bluetooth/airplay speaker solution that worked with a TV, I'd prefer that - no wires, better balancing capabilities, etc).

Re:Silent

[Pubstar]

My Samsung 27" Sync Master has HDMI in and optical or 3.5mm audio pass through.

Re:They're Still SPAMMERS

[wbr1]

Netflix doesn's spam. BTW your first link links to a malware site. The second describes that it was not netflix, but a spammer advertising netflix.
This is the problem with affiliate systems. People will always find ways to abuse them, and it will not be the original company. I have recieved affiliate spam that eventually goes through amazon. Was amazon responsible? No.
Granted, some companies do a better job of policing their affiliates, but all it takes is registering a few dozen domains, pasting up some crap pages, signing up for a new affiliate account, and firing off your lists again. Meanwhile pages on those same domains are serving up 'free ipad' ads to the unwary and harvesting more emails.

Re:They're Still SPAMMERS

[Kaenneth]

So, Firefox complains the first site you linked to has malware, ignoring that, it's also blocked by corporate firewall...

The second link complains about a netflix ad on a webpage; I don't see what that has to do with spam e-mail?

So, I'm calling you a malware spreading link spammer.

Re:Is Netflix

[TWiTfan]

imagine Microsoft started going around to every business running Windows/Exchange, saying, "Hey, we deserve some of your profits. You're using our products to make money, and it's totally unfair that we don't get a cut."

You don't have to imagine it. Apple does it with iOS every day. You want to put your software on a iPad or iPhone, or make any money off of said app--Apple wants their 30% cut (or hit the road, Jack).

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment got me thinking, and I came up with one. Insurance. ISP's want to be like insurance companies, collecting money for a service they don't want you to actually use. Unfortunately, they're not providing a service that their customers would rather not have to use.

I think it's high time to classify ISP's as a utility and be done with it.

Re:Is Netflix

[clarkn0va]

I think it's high time to classify ISP's as a utility and be done with it.

Completely agree

Still missing 2 things before I become a customer

[Anonymous Coward]

1. native linux client
2. local storage of download content - they can encrypt it, require phone home verification, whatever but let me store things I would want to watch later on my local machine, up to as much storage space as I care to allocate

Golden Corral

[tepples]

I can't think of another business where the typical vendor prefers that his customer use less of the product he sells.

Golden Corral and other buffet restaurants.

Re:Golden Corral

[clarkn0va]

Maybe, but I've never seen a buffet discourage its customers from eating more food. Sometimes they have a sign asking you not to take more than you can eat, or even promising to bill you extra if you do, but large ISPs don't ask you not to waste their product, they simply discourage it across the board.

I think the buffet comparison is particularly apt. Whenever my customers ask me about transfer caps, I simply ask that they enjoy the bandwidth and do not waste it. I leave it up to them what constitutes judicious use of the resource.

Re:Golden Corral

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of another business where the typical vendor prefers that his customer use less of the product he sells.

Golden Corral and other buffet restaurants.

There are some differences though. Buffet restaurants usually don't have to worry about one customer eating 1000 times as much as any other customer.
Of course if a buffet restaurant had a similar expense profile to an ISP, the food itself would be (almost) free...:)

Re:Golden Corral

[L4t3r4lu5]

A lot of "All you can eat" buffets have a time limit. One I know of in my local city has a limit of 1h45m. Otherwise you could, quite literally, sit there all day drinking tap water and eating chinese food all day for the price of a couple of Happy Meals.

Re:Golden Corral

[Samizdata]

A lot of "All you can eat" buffets have a time limit. One I know of in my local city has a limit of 1h45m. Otherwise you could, quite literally, sit there all day drinking tap water and eating chinese food all day for the price of a couple of Happy Meals.

Thank Ghod I never ran into one of those when I was younger. We used to track down the good, dirt cheap buffets and camp as a group for hours.

Although I did used to date a woman who's enormous brother once got asked to leave a Wendy's (back in the buffet days) because he ate too much.

Re:Golden Corral

[mortonda]

Maybe, but I've never seen a buffet discourage its customers from eating more food.

I have worked a pizza place that asked a family not to come back. 4 people, and when we saw them come in the door, we put 5-10 pizzas in the oven to replace the buffet that was about to get decimated.

Re:Golden Corral

[Bengie]

But ISPs are changed on peak bandwidth, which has been shown to not be highly affected by "high bandwidth users".

A user doing 100Mb/s from 12am-8am costs less than a user doing 1Mb/s from 5pm-11pm.

Re:Is Netflix

[SeaFox]

ISPs only have so much capacity to sell though.

Yes, and like any product when demand exceeds supply you would then invest in your company to increase your ability to fulfill it. It's called "business is going well -- we're expanding".

Re:Is Netflix

[Wesley Felter]

But since most ISPs are either unlimited or have such punitive overage charges that customers will never pay them, greater demand for bandwidth generally does not translate into more revenue for ISPs. Even the lowest tier 5 Mbps plan is sufficient to watch Netflix.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Food at an all-you-can-eat buffet?

BitTorrent traffic has dropped dramatically

[Wesley Felter]

A lot of BitTorrent traffic shifted to cyberlockers like MegaUpload a few years ago; I don't know if it has come back since then.

Re:They're Still SPAMMERS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Apparently you and the person who wrote the second link are idiots. Netflix does not contract directly with websites to host their ads. They, like everyone else, contract with networks like doubleclick and google. Those people are the ones doing business with the spammers. Where did you buy your low UID? Or has senility finally set in?

Re:Is Netflix

[nine-times]

Even that, however, is not charging a percentage of profits *in addition* to the licensing fee. Besides, I'm sure that licensing arrangement was completely optional. Those businesses could still buy Microsoft products from the store according to normal licensing terms, but they got a better deal through this per-seat licensing.

Re:Is Netflix

[h4rr4r]

I do, it is super cheap.
You need to switch providers.

I think it comes with 10Mbit for each rack.

Buy Internet, get TV free

[tepples]

An ability to watch video while away from home.

Are you talking about over Wi-Fi or over cellular?

No need to purchase/rent a separate device to timeshift or store content.

Unless you're on a TV that doesn't have a built-in Netflix player. Then you need to buy a Netflix player, but I'll grant that this is often cheaper than a DVR.

No hidden fees

Other than the loss of the discount on Internet service that the cable company used to give for also having TV. Some people report their ISP giving them a TV subscription for almost no additional charge.

Re:Buy Internet, get TV free

[edawstwin]

If you're getting internet from Comcast, you already get the OTA channels unencrypted for free - just plug in the coax to any tuner.

Re:Buy Internet, get TV free

[Anubis IV]

Are you talking about over Wi-Fi or over cellular?

Either. Clearly, if you're on a capped data plan, cellular may not be feasible, but I'm still on one of the old unlimited AT&T plans, so bringing an iPad along with me is an easy way to stay entertained by catching up on seasons of TV when I'm staying at a cheap hotel that doesn't yet offer WiFi.

Unless you're on a TV that doesn't have a built-in Netflix player. Then you need to buy a Netflix player, but I'll grant that this is often cheaper than a DVR.

A good point, but I'd actually like to flip that around again. With a cable subscription, my only viewing options are typically a TV or a PC with a capture card. In contrast, Netflix renders the TV optional since I can choose to use a PC, smartphone, tablet, or smart TV without any additional peripherals. And if I still want to use my non-smart TV, I'm set if I have a game console, blu-ray player, streaming box, HTPC, or video out from my smartphone/tablet, at least one of which most households that are considering Netflix would already have.

Other than the loss of the discount on Internet service that the cable company used to give for also having TV. Some people report their ISP giving them a TV subscription for almost no additional charge.

Quite true, and something I didn't consider. In fact, allow me to undermine my previous comment by describing my own situation:
10Mbps Internet = $50
10Mbps Internet + Bare bones cable TV = $42

I kid you not, my ISP/cable provider is paying me $8/mo. to have a cable TV subscription, but since I don't even have it hooked up any more, I completely forgot about it when I wrote my last comment. The last time I was watching cable TV regularly I was paying $30 for a "basic" package and had Internet from a different ISP, hence what I said in my previous comment. When I decided to cut the cable but keep them as an ISP instead of what I was using, they left me with something even below the "basic" package (it's basically just the OTA channels) and said they'd pay me to keep it (presumably to get advertising money from delivering commercials?). I had to have them explain it to me twice when I signed up for it, since I didn't understand/believe it at the time, but it's true.

Put differently, you could say that my ISP is paying me to use Netflix, since the $8 they're giving me each month to keep my below-basic cable subscription is how much Netflix costs me each month. Your comment's title is spot-on!

Re:Buy Internet, get TV free

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheapest Roku is less than $100; the cheapest PVRs I've seen from the cable companies are at least $300.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[TWiTfan]

Yeah, but to extend the simile, the Spartan won't go down without a helluva fight. And he'll be kicking, screaming, and biting the whole time.

Re:Is Netflix

[SeaFox]

imagine Microsoft started going around to every business running Windows/Exchange, saying, "Hey, we deserve some of your profits. You're using our products to make money, and it's totally unfair that we don't get a cut." That'd be ridiculous,right? Microsoft offered a product, and you bought it according to their terms. If you think they deserve a percentage simply because you use their product to make money, then where does it end? Why can't 3M come after you for a percentage because you use post-its.

Well they did do something analogous to this when they were doing site licensing. I don't know if they still get away with the practice but at one time they charged a per desktop license fee. Not a per installed copy mind you...they quite literally charged per machine on the premises and it did not matter if it was running a MS product or not.

That's not the same as it only references in-business usage. This would be like Microsoft asking for a percentage of quarterly revenue from your company simply because everyone is using Outlook/Exchange justifying it as the email service helped facilitate business.

Or how about the Ford company asking a taxi fleet for a cut of the per-mile rate because the vehicles are all Ford made, ignoring that the vehicles were all purchased paid in full by the company already.

Re:Still missing 2 things before I become a custom

[gameboyhippo]

This isn't as ridiculous of a request as it may seem. Caching music is what made me a Spotify customer.

Re:Is Netflix

[nine-times]

Though I believe Apple should open their platform up more, I would argue that the Apple situation is very different. They're offering a storefront and distribution for 30%, which really wouldn't be too bad if it weren't mandatory that you use their storefront. At least Apple is hosting things, designing the store, developing software, handing credit cards, etc.

Now imagine that, in addition to Apple taking their 30%, your ISP charged app distributors an additional 20% because the app was downloaded over their network. Seems particularly unfair, doesn't it? Well how is that different from ISPs wanting a cut of Netflix's profits?

Re:Is Netflix

[Dins]

I can't think of another business where the typical vendor prefers that his customer use less of the product he sells. It makes no sense to me.

It makes sense, it's just not a good way of doing business. It would be the same as an all-you-can-eat buffet worried about how much food customers are consuming for their flat rate. If customers consume more, the business loses more money. But yeah, the right way of doing it is like you're doing it: Just make more food so everyone has enough and raise your price a bit if you need to. I wish more ISPs would see it that way.

Double entendre

[evilviper]

From TFA:

One of Netflixâ(TM)s mathematicians is known as 10-Foot User Interface Guy because the average person watching the service via TV sits 10 feet away. His job is to arrange the box art of videos in the most appealing way on a big screen. Thereâ(TM)s also Two-Foot Guy, who deals with laptops, and 18-Inch Guy for tablets.

They call me "18-Inch Guy", too... Probably for different reasons.

Re:Double entendre

[jandrese]

I wish I could convince the two foot guy that scrollbars are a good thing and everybody hates having to slowly slide the stupid lists across the screen.

Re:Double entendre

[ArsonSmith]

Are they going to have 1-inch guy for google glass? You'd really just have to giggle at him every time his name is brought up.

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

I think lots of us imagined the idea of a virtual rental service, where you rent out over the internet videos limited by the physical copies you have on your person. This would be similar to libraries or physical video rental services. The problem is you'd probably be sued. Netflix went about it the right way by doing a physical rental operation first.

Re:Is Netflix

[prelelat]

But most ISP's aren't really paying more for bandwidth anyways except at the last mile. The converstation I had with a few network guys was that they figured it was probably costing a few fractions of a cent more a MB than it was a few years ago.

The reason is, is that most of the major ISPs are part of netflix openconnect program. This reduces the cost to last mile bandwidth which isn't exactly as expensive to provide fast speeds for, though over subscription on a cable provider for your area could cause some serious over saturation.
https://www.netflix.com/openconnect

The openconnect I believe also saves netflix money too as they only have to update the openconnect instead of say 100 users. So when arrested development is out in the wild they will update the openconnect and everyone will be connecting to those to prevent over-saturation of netflix primary services.

At least that's my understanding.

Re:Is Netflix

[hjf]

Yes but ISPs DO go after business with " You're using our products to make money, and it's totally unfair that we don't get a cut" attitude.
Case in point: "Business plans" for internet service. I don't know about where you live, but I can tell you: the local telco will not provide "residential" $20/mo DSL service to "commercial" phone lines. They instead "offer" the cheapest $50/mo "business plan" that offers less speed (3mbit vs 6mbit) but includes "up to 10 email addresses, 50MB of web space" while residential service offers only 1 mailbox and no web space. You can't opt not to have the useless 50MB space or the 10 mailboxes with 100MB storage (combined).
There's also no mention of an SLA, and you're stuck with the same 800-number helpdesk when you run into trouble.

Re:Is Netflix

[RobbieCrash]

MS requires a CAL for each user accessing servers running Windows. Or they offer a site/enterprise license that removes the burden for individual CALs. They didn't/don't require a CAL for a box that didn't access the Windows Server.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, have you even seen 300?

Re:Is Netflix

[GLMDesigns]

well, in that case you could add gym memberships. They would love to sell memberships to people who never come. (And that does happen.)

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even the lowest tier 5 Mbps plan is sufficient to watch Netflix.
I wish I had 5 mbps. Best we can get from anyone here is 3000/348. Fucking AT&T. I really hoped Google would pick Huntsville area for its next broadband rollout. While the city proper has UVERSE, many, many people are out in the county now and have to make do with mid-tier DSL. We can't even get cable.

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[Zeromous]

I know /. thinks this is funny, but some communities still use carried pigeons + USB sticks because it offers far superior bandwidth to what is available.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[Anonymous Coward]

They also liked to have sex with little boys.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[Anonymous Coward]

yup one was a highly trained disciplined professional and the other is an American

Should have checked first

[tepples]

And who wants to add a big honking DVD player hanging off their iPhone or iPad mini?

If you bought the iPad to stream movies, then you should have checked for availability of the particular movies that you wanted to watch on available streaming services before buying the iPad.

Re: Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in AUSTRALIA where we have a billion dollar undersea cable to pay off, and I can buy internet access at 30 dollars per megabit. (Though... The rate we currently pay is 60 as we signed our contract 2 years ago...)
Get a better provider.

Re:Is Netflix

[dgatwood]

I would kill for Google Fiber to cover the South Bay area. I live about ten miles from both Apple HQ and Google HQ (Sunnyvale), and I can't get cable Internet service, either. My only options are MegaPath DSL, AT&T DSL, and possibly some wireless services. (No, satellite Internet does not count.) And even though AT&T keeps sending me ads for U-Verse in the mail, when I actually go to check availability of business-class U-Verse service, they tell me that it isn't offered in Sunnyvale. My grandparents' house in rural Kentucky gets faster service than I can get halfway between the headquarters of the two largest tech firms in the world.

But because my choices range from horrible to worse, while I wait for Google to rescue me from South Bay Internet hell, I've set up a poor-man's Akamai service. My server serves the text content, and all the images come from a shared hosting provider with a fast connection. It also checks once an hour, and if the shared hosting provider ever goes down for longer than that, it transparently fails over to local copies of the images. All because I can't get a usable home network connection with upload speeds measured in megabits instead of kilobits. Blech.

Please, Google. Please start providing service in the South SF Bay area.

Collusion to disconnect super heavy users

[tepples]

One [carrier] will [upgrade its network] and the rest will have to follow.

Either that or all four carriers will decide to just kick off users who use what they deem excessive data transfer volume, just as all four decided at once to double the SMS rate from 10 cents to send or receive a message to 20 cents.

Re:Collusion to disconnect super heavy users

[h4rr4r]

That was to encourage you to buy their unlimited plan.

The kick off the users method only works when there is no competition. Mobile thankfully still has some, unlike ISPs.

Re:Collusion to disconnect super heavy users

[tepples]

That was to encourage you to buy their unlimited plan.

That may have been true of SMS, but not all carriers even offer unlimited data at a throughput suitable for Netflix VOD.

FCC To Allow Cable Cos To Encrypt OTA Channels

[tepples]

If you're getting internet from Comcast, you already get the OTA channels unencrypted for free

Not for long. See this story from October.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. To create an analogous situation with something other than Internet service,

... just step outside and look at the roads around your house. Most of them spend most of the day empty of cars.

Re: Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like how Netflix pays money to Warner, Disney, Fox, for the content you,re watching?

Why?

[Frosty Piss]

Oh just this once I wish they have tons of useless patents preventing the "man" from doing this easily.

Why? You object to Netflix being able to stream movies and other entertainment to millions of people who want it? I don't understand...

Xbox Live Gold surcharge

[tepples]

I'm still on one of the old unlimited AT&T plans

Are grandfathered plans transferable from one customer to another?

And if I still want to use my non-smart TV, I'm set if I have a game console

Not necessarily. Microsoft charges an extra $60 or so per year for Xbox Live Gold service to access your existing Netflix subscription from your Xbox 360 console. Someone who plays only single-player and offline multiplayer wouldn't already be paying that.

Re:Xbox Live Gold surcharge

[Anubis IV]

Are grandfathered plans transferable from one customer to another?

Not that I'm aware of. I figured it was one of those things that was only going to get more useful as time went on, however, so I've tried to hold onto it.

Not necessarily. Microsoft charges an extra $60 or so per year for Xbox Live Gold service to access your existing Netflix subscription from your Xbox 360 console. Someone who plays only single-player and offline multiplayer wouldn't already be paying that.

True, though that's an edge case and is still cheaper than the DVR alternative for most people (not that I'm defending it, since when I set up my 360, it was one of the first things that annoyed me about it...my Wii, PS3, Apple TV, and LG smart TV do it for free out of the box, and I'm one of those offline console gaming folks you're talking about).

Each transponder has limited bandwidth

[tepples]

Of course if a buffet restaurant had a similar expense profile to an ISP, the food itself would be (almost) free...:)

How would it be free? Each transponder on each cell tower has only a limited amount of bandwidth to serve customers within the cell. And new cell towers are nowhere near free.

Re: Is Netflix

[NeutronCowboy]

And don't forget that Megapath used to be Speakeasy, which just rents out AT&T lines. As a result, they have even worse speeds than AT&T, and AT&T has a direct incentive to not fix their noisy lines.

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[Anonymous Coward]

I know /. thinks this is funny, but some communities still use carried pigeons + USB sticks because it offers far superior bandwidth to what is available.

Bullshit.

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Remember that Info over carrier pigeon can make you real money.

He had info, lied about it to make people go the other way, then cleaned up, based on info from pigeons.

Re:Is Netflix

[joshuaf]

Have you looked at how healthcare works in this country?

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[Phrogman]

Also Athens at its height was around 20,000 citizens (plus women and children who didn't count) and over 100,000 slaves who actually did all the work. In effect all that democracy and philosophy we treasure was brought to us by elite misogynist slave owners :P

Suspiciously High

[ButchDeLoria]

That's a lot of traffic for a service that everyone I've spoken to claims has nothing good.

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, there is even a proposed IEEE standard...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers

Re:Is Netflix

[sdnoob]

the difference is, the apps use apple's storefront, apple's payment gateway, apple's software and update distribution, apple's ad network, etc, etc, etc. apple is earning their cut.

netflix is ONLY using internet bandwidth that has ALREADY been bought and paid for by them and by their customers. isp's have already made their money on providing the pipes, they don't deserve a penny of netflix revenues, or any 'tax' or 'surcharges' from their customers.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't very old in the 90s were you?

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to be. Companies could continually reinvest some of the profit so they could continually improve their product. You know to get an advantage over competitors.

Per-Customer Bandwidth Cost

[Greyfox]

They probably can break their bandwidth cost down per-customer (on average.) It obviously must cost less than shipping a DVD via the USPS a few times a month. I'm a bit curious how close that margin is. Are the saving a few cents per customer per DVD, or closer to thirty or forty cents? I suppose they probably wouldn't want to tell us if they could, for fear of giving competitors useful information.

How many thirds are there?

[goombah99]

I keep reading a third of the internet is porn, a third is bit torrent, 2/3 is spam, and now 1/3 is Netflix.

Where do you stand to measure this traffic. If it doesn't cross a peer is it traffic? Do I count each leg of a path?

Re:How many thirds are there?

[Macgrrl]

Maybe Netflix is spamming us with porn via bit torrent?

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget sneakernet. With USB3 portable drives we just upped the antie when it comes to sneaker-based throughput.

Re:They're Still SPAMMERS

[toddestan]

They are also a huge buyer of pop-up/pop-under ads. Yes, I know everyone around here uses a pop-up blocker, but that doesn't change the fact that Netflix thinks it's perfectly okay to harass users with pop-ups.

Arrested Development

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only imagine what'll happen to the internet when Netflex premieres the season 4 of Arrested Development. (May 28)

Re:Arrested Development

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Arrested Development and why should I care?

Oh, sorry, I forgot there's a list of nerd-approved TV shows you're allowed to like isn't there?

Let the sheeple watch their reality shows, but we're cool and geek-hip and still think they'll do another series of Firefly (sci fi for teenage emos) one day which we will immediately download via BitTorrent.

Wankers.

Re:Arrested Development

[neminem]

If they made another series of Firefly and you could only watch it legally on tv, by paying for Cable and getting a buttload of garbage you didn't want, then yes, I would probably torrent it. If, on the other hand, you could purchase it legally either by streaming it or by just buying the dvds? I would buy the crap out of it.

And Arrested Development is amazing. I recommend that you go watch it. It's pretty big news in the geek world that netflix is bringing it back - because it was a fantastic show, not because of any sort of stupid groupthink.

Idiots waste energy and bandwidth. Video at 11 !

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't get more obvious than this.

Idiots eat too much, drive huge SUVs, and waste their lives
watching worthless crap sold to them by Hollywood.

All I can say is, I hope the Chinese are making progress with that
air-transmissible avian flu.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

>There's also no mention of an SLA, and you're stuck with the same 800-number helpdesk when you run into trouble.

The large ISPs I worked for did have a dedicated business number with much better trained staff, far shorter (or no) wait times. If it was before 1PM they would try to roll a support truck the same day if possible. Residential did not get service like that.

That said, AT&T has the worst business service for regular DSL. Their T1 and dedicated circuit techs are good enough.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, any business that doesn't get to charge for its customers' consumption is going to prefer that its customers use less of its product.

The reason you can't think of any is because there aren't many businesses like that. Insurance is one, road maintenance is another - both of these industries would prefer that you use as little of their product as possible (while paying for as much as possible, naturally).

If ISPs are allowed to charge per Gb downloaded, they will immediately learn to love Netflix. But as long as customers are married to this "all you can eat buffet" style of pricing, most ISPs will - understandably - hate it, because it raises their costs without increasing their revenues.

It's particularly hard on people who don't use Netflix, but still need a fast internet connection. And that's a surprisingly large demographic.

Re:Is Netflix

[sootman]

Jeez, how does this tripe get modded up? The 30% Apple takes is because they're providing the store, bandwidth, payment processing, and more for the developers. Maybe it'd be nice if devs could get their apps onto iOS devices in other ways, but they'd still be paying SOMEONE for bandwidth, a web page, payment processing, etc. They're only doing what every single other retail store on the planet does.

This is totally different then the example given of MS and Windows/Exchange. You, a customer, could download a $0.99 drawing app for iOS and make a piece of artwork that sells for a million dollars, and do you know how much money Apple would want from you? NOT ONE PENNY.

But, this is slashdot, where "dur hur, Apple sucks, herp derp" is a sure-fire ticket to a +5.

Re:Is Netflix

[Hamsterdan]

Depends on where you live

"New monthly data transfer capacity of 15 GB for uploads and downloads combined"

http://www.videotron.com/residential/internet/residential-internet/internet/basic-speed-internet

Re:Is Netflix

[mrchew1982]

We have COX business and have been very impressed. While the speeds that they offer are lower, i am much more likely to get the speed promised because my traffic is prioritized at the switch. I have never waited more than 24hrs for a tech to show up and fix the problem, and they've always been very nice on the phone with short wait times. I have also had no hassle whatsoever using netflix or torrenting, and have no evidence of any kind of traffic shaping. All that combined with a static IP to run my personal website on, it's well worth the extra that i pay.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting ... but actually, doesn't every single business want customers to pay for product and for them not to actually collect?

Everything from "Use-By" dates on packaging that encourage people to throw away good food to late cancellation fees. Damn, I'd start a bank with no ATMs if I could get away with it... "put that money a in money-market mutual fund ... and it's gone!"

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[L4t3r4lu5]

Networking 101: Bandwidth != Latency.

Re:Is Netflix

[chrismcb]

The same way you take advantage of the roads that you didn't really pay for.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

And we are paying for that downstream bandwidth. Netflix, I'm sure, pays an insane amount to their ISP for the bandwidth they use.

You are using the same logic that AT&T used when they wanted their "google tax".

The point is that there is no need for any paid subscription service like Netflix to be available on the general internet at all. I know this is hopelessly old-fashioned, but the internet wasn't created as a way of making it easy for companies to make money.

Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix provides a paid subscription service so you can watch TV shows and movies?

Why exactly is this a good use of one third of the internet's capacity? And why is this morally acceptable, when the evil media companies charging to watch TV or selling DVDs isn't?

If copyright is bad, and therefore downloading from BitTorrent is a sound ethical decision, why does Netflix get a free pass?

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[chrismcb]

You mean like the 300 guys that held off 100,000?
Comparing TV networks (actually Cable really) to Netflix is like comparing apples to oranges. While both provide entertainment, they provide different types of content.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly sir, just oil yourself up and one of our salesmen will be along shortly. Oh make sure all your personal data is ready to hand.

Internet capacity

[devent]

I find it quite funny always those comparisons: Xxx is using 1/3 of Internet, 10% of heavy users download 99% of normal users, etc.
But nowhere they tell you how much capacity is left.
You know that Netflix could create 99% of the whole of Internet traffic without affecting anything if there is enough capacity left?
"Netflix eats the Internet" says only something about how much Netflix is favoured by the Internet users. It says nothing about Internet capacity.

Re:Is Netflix

[rocket rancher]

Case in point: "Business plans" for internet service. I don't know about where you live, but I can tell you: the local telco will not provide "residential" $20/mo DSL service to "commercial" phone lines.

Well, yes they will, if you live in the US. One of the legacies of the Bell break-up thirty years ago was the establishment of a two-tiered tariff structure for telephone service. The regulation was very clear on this. If the line terminated at an address in a residentially-zoned area, the phone company that serviced that area had to charge the residential tariff. If it terminated in a commecially-zoned area, the phone company could charge the commerical tariff, which was 3X as large as the residential one. The location drove the tariff, not the class of consumer. It was for that reason that the dial-in servers for the ISP we started here in Tucson in 1995 were located in the garage of a residential house we rented in a quiet neighborhood. The tech support staff could live in the house and be available 24/7, and we avoided $28/mo/line on 30 lines, paying only $14/mo/line instead of $42. The phone company, US West, pitched a bitch but that was all they could do. Well, they did drag their heels for nearly a month and did try to charge us $12k to drag copper less than a hundred meters from their loop to our POP, allowing our rival to get online ahead of us. We were the second ISP to go online in Tucson by exactly 30 days as a result of their gamesmanship. When we realized they were just being assholes, we switched to MCI/Sprint, who charged us a token fee (around $200 IRRC) to drag copper nearly a klick from their loop, and got it done in two days.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[rocket rancher]

But...

THIS...IS...NETFLIX!

(apologies to Gerard Butler and Frank Miller)

Re:Is Netflix

[ArhcAngel]

MS requires a CAL for each user accessing servers running Windows. Or they offer a site/enterprise license that removes the burden for individual CALs. They didn't/don't require a CAL for a box that didn't access the Windows Server.

Correct, however this wasn't CAL licenses. This was for copies of Windows. Microsoft sent in auditors from BSA and they simply counted desktops.

Re:Is Netflix

[JImbob0i0]

Netflix use Level 3, LimeLight *and* Akamai ... and are looking at their own CDN stuff too ... just because no one vendor can provide all they need for them and they will change the edge servers you're pointed at dependent on metrics being taken from their partners ...

Re:Is Netflix

[Wesley Felter]

That was kinda my point; people with a 15 GB cap will not sign up for Netflix at all. They won't sign up for Netflix, blow their cap, and pay $100/month in overages. So Netflix does not cause ISPs to earn more money.

Re:They're Still SPAMMERS

[Erbo]

The site wasn't always a malware site. I probably should have posted the Internet Archive link to it. The author there described receiving unsolicited commercial E-mail from Netflix, and I distinctly remember having also received unsolicited commercial E-mail from Netflix. This would have been in the early 2000s or thereabouts.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[airdweller]

...Just like the US and its Constitution... :)
(zigzags away)

Hmmm...

[KingGypsy]

Interesting how no one commented that maybe this isn't the best use of the Internet....... Shouldn't all these private companies and corporations be on a "business internet" and leave the WWW for us real people out here? Oh wait, we're all gun-toting, freedom-loving, god-fearing free-market capitalists. Can't have that, now can we?

Re:Hmmm...

[VisceralLogic]

Interesting how no one commented that maybe this isn't the best use of the Internet....... Shouldn't all these private companies and corporations be on a "business internet" and leave the WWW for us real people out here? Oh wait, we're all gun-toting, freedom-loving, god-fearing free-market capitalists. Can't have that, now can we?

Exactly whom do you think is consuming this bandwidth? Surely you don't think Netflix uses this all this bandwidth to stream movies back and forth between its own servers..

Re:Is Netflix

[The End Of Days]

granted, it's not hard to hold the opinion that someone else should be forced to provide you with a service you want. certainly a lot easier than being responsible for providing said service.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how we do things in America. We want capitalism for people and socialism for business. Ideally, it would be the other way 'round, but since money=speech in the US, you can guess who gets heard.

Re: Is Netflix

[dgatwood]

In my case, Megapath used to be Covad, but yes, they're just renting the AT&T lines. That said, at least back when they were Covad, they did manage to get AT&T to at least fix some of the problems with my line. YMMV.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Some libertarians probably fainted after reading your comment.

Re:Netflix used 1/3 of Internet's BW on DVD-by-mai

[Zeromous]

To be fair google.com usb carrier pigeon is more key strokes than chevron, copy&paste + Bullshit.

Re:Is Netflix

[Samizdata]

So they should raise their prices then?! Or maybe put down some more pipes? If an ISP has a problem with its customers using bandwidth, they really have three options: 1) Raise prices per/MB; 2) Get more bandwidth; 3) Get rid of customers who use a lot of bandwidth. It seems that many ISPs want to do only 1 and 3, where the logical thing is to do 2 (because bandwidth usage will only increase in the future, and and ISP that can provide it, will have an edge of those that can't).

But, but, building infrastructure costs MONEY!

Losing high bandwidth users or raising rates makes the balance sheet look good and makes the shareholders happy and doesn't cost us any real money!

What? Are you a communist or one of those hacktivists or Pirate Bay people or something?

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[Anonymous Coward]

That was athens, not sparta, pick up a history book every now and then.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[SilentStaid]

Sparta was a city-state of Greece. Thanks for playing.

Re:Is Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

Every store does it. Can you go to Walmart and sell your product in their store without Walmart getting a cut?

Re:Is Netflix

[Bengie]

Apples and Oranges. Datacenters pack much higher densities and offer much more redundancy and management and awesome SLAs. I've seen one DataCenter advertise that they were connected to three Internet Exchanges, and that they connected to thousands of different networks directly. They per Mbit cost for that kind of bandwidth would be much higher, but you gain quality.

Re:Is Netflix

[Bengie]

Using fiber, bandwidth to the last mile is virtual free, but the connections are not. What does this mean? It means user usage does not affect costs on the last mile.

Well, what about the trunk, where they do have to pay for bandwidth? That bandwidth is relatively cheap and is much cheaper than the cost of installing the last mile. Still, bandwidth is not an issue.

Re:The TV networks have had an awful time adapting

[sayno2quat]

Dude, have you even seen 300?

No. Netflix doesn't have it available for streaming.