Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Pondering Peer-to-Peer Technology For Streaming Video
An anonymous reader writes "The folks at Ars Technica have discovered evidence that Netflix is actively researching the possibility of using peer-to-peer technology to stream its videos to its customers. The evidence: a one-month old job listing seeking a software engineer with extensive experience developing and testing large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In addition: Netflix's admission of wanting to 'look at all kinds of routes.' A recent blog post by BitTorrent's CEO explains how, in a peer-to-peer architecture, 'Netflix traffic would no longer be coming from one or two places that are easy to block. Instead, it would be coming from everywhere, all at once; from addresses that were not easily identified as Netflix addresses — from addresses all across the Internet.'"
In other Netflix news, the company has "reached an agreement with three smaller cable companies that, for the first time, will let U.S. subscribers watch the streaming video service’s content as though it were an ordinary cable channel."
I'm going to charge Netflix for the rights to transit my network.
THL phish sticks
"The Net interprets Comcast as damage and routes around it."
Have gnu, will travel.
At least on new GoT nights this would really help.
Seriously, I already have problems keeping my connection below my monthly cap (60 GB combined up/down). I don't want to share it with other subscribers.
Try it! Library of Babel
Now that netflix has exclusive shows that release an episode a week (and the whole seasona t once) there is going to be burst traffic on specific shows. It is going to really help top level bandwidth if they can offload the most popular content.
Having low level peering on popular content is good for the network as whole.
Unless they are going to reimburse customers for the extra bandwidth that the use because they are also transmitting, all this is going to do is inconvenience a lot of people as they hit their monthly caps a lot sooner... because they could now transmitting a lot of what they receive, which basically means that counting both uploading and downloading traffic, their usage will almost double.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I really don't see why the networks themselves were not pushing for this. With massive amounts of "common" content things like netflix can really offload top level traffic by peering.
Well, to begin with both cable and phone companies would (much) rather you paid them for video service separately.
Then there's the fact that P2P takes them out of the position of selling access to you while removing their regulatory fig leaf of citing (inflated) numbers for adding bandwidth.
And that's just the first two.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
So now that the FCC drops net neutrality, Netflix is going to play ball with the ISPs? They've basically been DOSing the ISPs local loops for nearly a decade, blaming the ISPs and now they have the brilliant idea that maybe they should address the insane amount of bandwidth they're eating up? How much do you want to bet they stop being such assholes about peering agreements now as well? Maybe a client that caches data to? Who came up with these brilliant cost saving ideas?!?!
I don't think you understand how Netflix works -- they don't push movies over my broadband connection without permission. Instead, they send me content that I asked for -- which is the entire reason I have a high speed internet connection in the first place. If I wasn't watching streaming video, instead of a 25mbit cable internet connection, I'd have a 3 - 6mbit DSL connection for less cost.
If the cable company can't afford to handle the traffic with their infrastructure, then they ought to increase their rates. I'm happy to pay the cable company a fair price for internet service, but I don't want to pay it in hidden charges for all of the bandwidth heavy websites I use, I want to see exactly how much internet service costs so I can shop around to different providers and to make it more likely that a competitor will step in as the price of service increases.
They've basically been DOSing the ISPs local loops for nearly a decade
Why do you think the local loop was the bottle neck? Netflix speeds increased literally overnight after they paid Comcast to upgrade the internet connection at the peering points, no local loop upgrades needed.
back in the early/mid 2000's for my radio station when my Shoutcast provider disapeared. I used http://www.streamerp2p.com/ and there was also later Peercast. The streamerp2p actually worked ok but this came at a time when I lost interest in streaming with alll the laws and OMFG those geeks in their basements with their radio stations are starving the artists hysteria was in full swing. Too bad had my station up to 24 people listening at a time.
I was going to start streaming video using Peercast with their p2ptv but never got around to that.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
They've basically been DOSing the ISPs local loops for nearly a decade, blaming the ISPs
BULL, FUCKING, SHIT!!!
The ISPs customers paid for internet access. They sent out requests for packets and got them back in return as the internet is intended to work. Netflix did the exact same thing on their end of the pipe. Netflix and their consumers are NOT responsible for managing how their ISPs provide the service they've already PAID for. If the ISPs oversold capacity and delayed infrastructure improvements then that is their cross to bear.
Here's a simple thought experiment: If Netflix was replaced with 1000 independent video streaming sites producing the same aggregate volume of traffic would it be fair to single any one of them out to degrade service? Would it be fair to extort them all to double dip on both ends of the pipe? As a lazy ISP who would you then blame for your failure to provide the services your customers already paid you to provide?
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
If I buy 10 mega bits up and down. I expect the ISP to deliver that or I call it fraud.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Holy crap, which ISP's stock are you holding onto praying it goes back up?!? If ISP's had increased their capacity like they were supposed to YEARS ago and stopped over-selling their intentionally crippled network there wouldn't be a problem. Split the ISP's from the content providers and maybe North America won't be stuck in the technological dark ages for the next generation as well.
In lots of places in US Internet is Metered. Even in my neck of the woods I start getting nasty letters at 300 GB down, let alone up. Most people use very little upload bandwidth, and you can be the ISPs would notice if they started bitorrenting all their Netflix traffic. This isn't going to happen.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
netflix should have done it in the first place
as it is now my kids watch the same cartoons and shows and it's the same data streamed over and over
or set up a home CDN type box where you can cache some shows to stream locally on your home network
the internet has been using CDN's and direct peering for years to push video and other data intensive content
netflix not only used to pay a CDN to deliver their content, limelight, but as soon as they let their CDN contract expire they came out with super HD
go google it, it's all on industry sites and blogs. every video provider is responsible for their content delivery and netflix screwed their's up because they spend too much on content.
the way some of the dummy cord cutters are ranting comcast should be running fiber to my house if i decide to set up a cat video business because it's on the internet and comcast is responsible for everything on the internet
That's what I thought at first too -- not so much between DCs (or regions, really -- Netflix is located in the AWS cloud), but rather between the CDN cache boxes (OpenConnect Appliances) located in various ISPs. Right now, they all have to download their data from central locations, but P2P would allow OCAs to chat to each other directly.
However, if you look at the job posting, it mentions part of the job duties being "liaise with internal client and toolkit teams to integrate P2P as an additional delivery mechanism" which seems like it's pretty squarely about enabling P2P on the client level.
dummy cord cutters
Cable company (probably Comcast/TW) shill spotted.
--
BMO
They did pay. Netflix payed Cogent for the amount of data they uploaded. You paid Comcast (or whoever) for the amount of data you downloaded. Your movie data has been paid for -- twice-- and never forget it.
Now, Comcast might have promised you an "all you can eat" unlimited Internet connection, but by God you paid for it, and Comcast can either deliver or just give you your money back. Note I'm not saying that connections should be unlimited -- in fact, I think end users paying per GB is fair -- but the nature of these contracts is determined by the ISPs making the offer. If Comcast are writing cheques their network can't cash, that's between their shareholders and their competition.
The real issue here is the Peering agreements between the very largest ISPs. They agreed back in the 1980s to not charge one another and simply switch to a user pays cash model. This would encourage ISPs to try and host as much content as they had users, promoting both the creation of servers and content as well as connections and end users. It's a system which has functioned astoundingly well for 30 years now.
Comcast now wants to go back on those peering agreements essentially because it is too lazy to compete. Comcast will not a) Try to make Netflix offers so that they are hosted on Comcast's Network in the first place, b) charge end users the real costs of the GB they download or c) cut the pensioned executive fat out of their operation so that they can actually deliver what the customers paid while still making money.
If Comcast succeeds in the US with this, they will have effectively broken the Internet. We will go from the Network we have to a closed off, content delivery system like cable, possibly seeing the internet fragment into a collection of internal corporate networks -- a situation more likely each days as IPv4 addresses run out. The Internet is now in danger of regressing to the original conceptions of a world wide computer network, first imagined in the 1960s,and bearing no resemblance to the open, imaginative, uncontrolled and informative network we have today. This danger is the result of the greed of companies like comcast, and the simplistic emotional arguments that constitute the current level of discourse around this, probably the most pivotal social and economic issue of our times.
May the Maths Be with you!
there has never been a consumer ISP service with guaranteed bandwidth 24x7 for every single customer
i'd rather pay $100 a month for TV/Internet or $50 for just internet and get my current service than pay twice as much because a small minority demand more bandwidth
i'm at 15/1 now and time warner upgrades the network every year or two which is fine by me. just because a few people want to have 4 people streaming netflix in HD at the same time doesn't mean i have to pay for it
Seems they might also want to look into the possibility of boxes that download in advance. I'd be happy to 'subscribe' to some of the content, or queue up for download as it would ensure optimal quality regardless of bandwidth and QOS. I know that is a pretty big departure from the simple server client approach they have built upon, but it would open new doors.
the draconic powers that provide the content to netflix probably dont like it that you have a copy of a product on your drive even if its encrypted.
Encrypt the video stream with a symmetric cipher and change the symmetric key at each keyframe. Then stream the cipher keys when the video is played, which allows far less data use per repeated view. It'd probably be enough BS to fool the studios into thinking it's unbreakable, as this way it'd be impossible to brute-force the whole thing before Earth becomes uninhabitable.
Option 3: Find a job in an area that has better Internet options and move there.
http://www.time4popcorn.eu/
None of the stupid irritating restrictions of the paid services.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
You're buying something more along the lines of (tiny print) 10 kbps service burstable to (huge print) 10 Mbps.
Actually, Comcast tech support has told me point blank that I'm guaranteed at least 12M down and 3M up. Actual speeds right now are about 18M down and 4M up.
Wow, I think I just felt two brain vessels pop from the sheer concentration of stupidity and lies.
So you can get your so claimed non-existent caching servers right here
https://www.netflix.com/openco...
You could also get free peering agreements with netflix, with more info at that same URL.
If offering free peering is being assholes about things however, I'd hate to see the cruel names you throw out at netflix when your own ISP tells you to go fuck yourself with your netflix peer...
If your ISP can't afford the internet bandwidth for one copy of a stream, in order to send that cached copy to each and every one of their customers an infinite amount of times... Well hopefully you can see why the ISP would get the blame here.
Also you really should do something about the guys in your home holding a gun to your head and forcing you to demand netflix send data to you. Would you like us to contact the police for you?
ISP can just lower upstream to 1/10th what it is now, except toward "good" websites. It'll happen, just watch, this is America we're talking about.
I've been happy with Plex and chromecast for home media streams.
So many Netflix customers watch via Roku / ATV / Chromecast / smart TV / Blu-Ray player... all devices with no local storage. Most of them barely have enough transient memory to handle buffering, and that's it. P2P generally requires you to have some storage space, where various uploads can be initiated as needed... it's even more necessary for streaming video P2P, which is time sensitive, as compared to raw file downloads. So I don't see how Netflix can really do anything more than offload a small fraction of their overall server traffic.
Why do I have this urge to put a leech on the cable coming into my house to improve performance?
Don't bother, there's already one at the other end.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
So now that the FCC drops net neutrality, Netflix is going to play ball with the ISPs? They've basically been DOSing the ISPs local loops for nearly a decade, blaming the ISPs and now they have the brilliant idea that maybe they should address the insane amount of bandwidth they're eating up? How much do you want to bet they stop being such assholes about peering agreements now as well? Maybe a client that caches data to? Who came up with these brilliant cost saving ideas?!?!
I fully support net neutrality but Netflix is the primary reason the FCC dropped it. I would have much preferred that they passed regulations requiring content providers to work in good faith with ISPs to ensure they were using data in the most efficient way possible (which is how almost everyone else behaves naturally) but instead we had this profit hungry company back the FCC into a corner until they took the easy way out. Instead of sharing the sandbox, it's now whomever has the most moneys sandbox. Thanks netflix.
I pay for internet service with a cap of 500 gigs per month. If I want to use half of that to stream Netflix, that's my business. If my ISP fucks with my access to Netflix without disclosing that possibility when I sign up for service, they are guilty of false advertising which is illegal. Doing away with net neutrality helps give them the legal loopholes needed to get away with it, because it is essentially redefining what "internet access" is.
Actually, Comcast tech support has told me point blank that I'm guaranteed at least 12M down and 3M up.
The tech is speaking with the voice of inexperience. If he says you're "guaranteed 12M down and 3M up" those are the thresholds Comcast has set for "acceptable" service on your package, which I assume is advertised higher than that. If you're below those thresholds they will begin their normal troubleshooting/field tech process. But they are going to be going by the average of your connection speed, and if a tech cannot resolve the issue they will eventually either tell you to "this is how it's going to be" or downgrade you to a speed package they can support.
When issues go beyond the modem, and replacing of coax and splitters from the pole and through the house, and up to a "line issue" they start looking at cost of line/node upgrading verses number of subscribers this issue is effecting -- and they may decide it's not worth the trouble.
The VAST majority of Netfiix's weaknesses come from copyright giving absolute control of venue and all the little dirty bullshit chicanery that comes with it. If we could loosen that, a whole new world of services could be utilized on the internet, including personal CDNs
Good-bye
Well, cable would like you to subscribe to their cable tv stuff separately, but for video over the internet, they don't want you to pay for it separately, because then the people who don't want it, won't pay for it. what they want is for you to pay for access to the "internet", where by the internet, they redefine it to mean "Comcast Internet" [or whatever company they are], and then every company that wants to be able to access their "customers", they also need to pay Comcast Internet to be able to available for Comcast subscribers to visit them.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Yet another answer for "Why is my hard drive going constantly?"
I'm just "this guy", you know?
I think this is more a bargaining tool to negotiating better rates at the toll booths. I'm not sure how practical this would be, but it does at least give them an option.
Actually, Comcast tech support has told me point blank that I'm guaranteed at least 12M down and 3M up.
The tech is speaking with the voice of inexperience. If he says you're "guaranteed 12M down and 3M up" those are the thresholds Comcast has set for "acceptable" service on your package, which I assume is advertised higher than that. If you're below those thresholds they will begin their normal troubleshooting/field tech process. But they are going to be going by the average of your connection speed, and if a tech cannot resolve the issue they will eventually either tell you to "this is how it's going to be" or downgrade you to a speed package they can support.
When issues go beyond the modem, and replacing of coax and splitters from the pole and through the house, and up to a "line issue" they start looking at cost of line/node upgrading verses number of subscribers this issue is effecting -- and they may decide it's not worth the trouble.
Yup
3 words....permanent bandwidth exhaust.
I still can't believe there isn't a consumer advocacy group trying to end this practice.
Netflix is also a competitor. A successful netflix means fewer people paying for cable television.
VUDU was doing real time P2P streaming in 2007, and 1080p P2P streaming since 2008. The technology worked great. The problem was it required devices with HDDs, and so it was the matter of a small startup with limited capital trying to sell their own hardware, which is very difficult. Not to mention the cost of CDB bandwidth and storage dropped drastically in the late 2000's, making the P2P play solution financially rewarding given the complexity and disk space requirements for peers.
The current incarnation of VUDU is a pure streaming service after a pivot to embed the software in all consumer devices and grow the customer base enough to actually make money.
95% of your Internet cost has nothing to do with bandwidth. $1 will get you about 1.3TB of transit, assuming evenly distributed over the entire month. Bandwidth is the smallest portion of your bill. If you really want to save money, tell your ISP to drop customer service, that's costs ISP magnitudes more money than bandwidth.
Complaining about "heavy" Internet users causing prices to be higher is like complaining that your new car comes with an owners manual and you don't need one so you should get it deducted from the price.
That'd really piss off ISPs. Want to shakedown netflix for money to pay for priority lanes? Tada, now you've got huge downloads with accompanying uploads coming from distributed locations and using normal web ports. Talk about a nuclear option.
as mentioned on torrentfreak, some shops use bittorrent for updating servers, for example, twitter and facebook:
According to Tom Cook of Facebookâ(TM)s systems engineering group, the daily code updates for Facebook used to cause a lot of trouble until they discovered BitTorrent.
âoeBitTorrent is fantastic for this, itâ(TM)s really great,â Cook said. âoeItâ(TM)s âsuperduperâ(TM) fast and it allows us to alleviate a lot of scaling concerns weâ(TM)ve had in the pastâ
source: http://torrentfreak.com/facebo... ....while they MAY be looking for p2p stuff for spreading video around... it is also possible job applicants would just be doing stuff behind the scenes, like theyve been doing elsewhere.
Everything comes down to the fact that Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, Charter and the other big ISPs ALL sell both transit (i.e. internet access) AND content (i.e. "TV" whether that be delivered by cable, fiber or otherwise) and are willing to do everything in their power to make sure that you have to keep buying your content from them and not from someone else (otherwise they would become dumb pipes and lose most of their control)
Firstly, any content Netflix distributes in this way would almost certainly have DRM still applied to it and the Netflix client software would make sure that the end user had the right to purchase that content before playing it (and would still have to pull the keys from the central key server in doing this)
And secondly, they wouldn't roll this out unless they had approval to do this from the entities providing Netflix with content.
------
The tech is speaking with the voice of inexperience. If he says you're "guaranteed 12M down and 3M up" those are the thresholds Comcast has set for "acceptable" service on your package, which I assume is advertised higher than that. If you're below those thresholds they will begin their normal troubleshooting/field tech process.
------
Yes, I've known for some time that's the case.
You mean they decided to take their CDN in-house? Which CDN provider does youtube use? I am really curious which video providers actually use external CDNs, it is pretty expensive and inefficient for video streaming.
Heavy internet users are why you have 15/1. If it were not for those few people who want to hog bandwidth by sending pictures and sound over the internet, you would still be on a 2400 baud modem.
Which is why Comcast should not be allowed to own content.
Fuck P2P, you still have a one to one load in the network. use multicast.
Really? $0.25/mbit? In what volume? In which market? By who?
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)