Slashdot Mirror
Netflix CEO Predicts Mobile Operators Will Soon Offer Unlimited Video (phys.org)
An anonymous reader shares an AFP report: Netflix head Reed Hastings predicted Monday that mobile carriers will soon offer data plans that give users unlimited video streaming to meet the rising popularity of watching TV and movies on mobile devices. Carriers offer unlimited data caps but they are usually very expensive. But Hastings said he believed mobile carriers will eventually create a two-tear system where video data is unlimited to meet the growing demand for watching TV series and movies on mobile devices. "What we are going to see I think is a number of companies pioneering new ways of offering services to the consumers where it is unlimited video data but it is limited to say one megabit speed," he said. "So it is a slower speed but you get unlimited data on that and that turns out to be very efficient on network so an operator can offer unlimited viewing."
But Hastings said he believed mobile carriers will eventually create a two-tear system
How many tears does he think we shed with the current system? Hopefully the new plans will decrease sadness.
I'd like to see wireless data buckets being large enough so that most people don't need home internet. Would really give a kick in the behind to lazy telecom/cable incumbents and their corrupt political lapdogs.
since I already have a contract phone that has unlimited minutes, texts and data for £19 (~$24) a month.
Unlimited data plans are more common, and a LOT cheaper outside of the USA
Now we can be stupid on the go.
If carriers can afford to offer 1 megabit at unlimited data, then they should do that for all data. Some Canadian carriers like WIND already offer this type of unlimited plan where after your data cap runs out you get slower speeds. Restricting this to "video" data is a fancy way of saying data that the companies pay to make cheaper.
So net neutrality is only good when it hurts him? Because I remember Netflix fought hard for it but he appears to be advocating the opposite so it benefits him
'cause I like humping your mommy,
and getting caught by your dad.
If you're not into poota,
and you have half a nad.
If you like humping butts at midnight,
in the smooth anal gape.
Then I'm the one that you searched for,
come to me and assrape!
- Helen Gurley Brown
New ways? Since when are brandwidth throttling and traffic shaping new?
Providers will do what's most profitable. If jacking up prices and throttling connections is cheaper than improving the infrastructure, that's what they will do.
Sorry. I stick with my pc. Maybe if the monthly rate goes down to $20/month (or less) I'll consider lugging around a cumbersome "phone".
T-Mobile has done this at 1.5mbps for quite a while.
ATandT does 3mbps
Sprint I think has a similar too.
This seems like a pretty safe assumption, since it's been happening for a while and is currently expanding.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
How primitive, in my country we dont have datacaps on mobile data, so i can watch my existing netflix just fine... Might have something to do with market that actually works for best solutions to consumers..
If you make video unlimited, you might as well just make all data unlimited. Video is the thing that's using data already. Everything else (for the majority of people) is incidental.
I mean really is there ever such a thing as unlimited smooth action video that does not cost lotsa bux. Sure there are times when watching some cutesy youtube clip for 90 seconds but what about watching full 90 minutes of a fascinating documentary (like what they used to show on broadcast TV) without it always pausing (and 90 minutes becomes 5 hours). Or streaming an activity i.e. Parachute Mobile mission where video is very basic 340 size but for the whole day. This has been done because one of our people has grandfathered unlimited data from years ago, his cellular service keeps asking for him to "upgrade."
mfwright@batnet.com
Wait.... Is'nt this called cable TV?
Well, that would be a considerable improvement from the number of tears induced by existing plans.
> I'd like to see wireless data buckets being large enough so that most people don't need home internet.
Unfortunately, the math and physics are such that won't happen. Not if people want to stream HD video for hours at a time. Basically the only way to make it appear as though you had that would be for the ISP to install a wifi access on each house (or two) and pretend it's not home internet service. The cost would still be the same, the only difference would be the ISP owns the access point - but they still have to run a cable to your house.
The issue is, to have sufficient range, the radio signals need to be below a certain frequency, around 1 Ghz or so. Higher frequencies such as 10 Ghz don't go through walls, etc. So wireless internet needs channels of say 1.0-1.1 Ghz. BUT that channel, 1 Ghz to 1.1 Ghz, is 0.1 Ghz wide. The "bandwidth" is 100 Mhz. The bandwidth in megahertz limits the bandwidth in bytes per second. We used to say that a channel with 100 Mhz bandwidth could carry no more than 100 Mbps of data (minus overhead of about 15%-20% means 80 Mbps in 100 Mhz). There's a trick that can triple that rate, and maybe a bit more, so figure 240 Mbps for everyone on that frequency range.
The frequency range of very roughly 1Ghz-2Ghz or so is the one that can go a reasonable distance, so it ALL of our medium to long range communication that needs decent bandwidth has to squeeze into that range. For example, GSM phones can operate at 900 Mhz, 1,800 Mhz, and 1,900 Mhz.
Voice-only radio and some other lower bandwidth uses can be at lower frequencies, but basically that 1-2Ghz band is where everyone wants to be, not just for wireless internet. So we can set aside the three GSM frequencies of 900/1,800/1,900 for wireless "phones". If each provider in an area gets one of those frequency ranges, and each frequency range has 100 Mbps of bandwidth, that means the provider has 100 Mbps to divide up between all of their customers in the area. In this respect, physics is a bitch.
* Yes I oversimplified things, but this post is long enough without going into more detail.
I see television networks are advertising their streaming services for consumption on mobile devices. But there's no incentive for ISPs to reduce the price; the markup on mobile internet is highly profitable.