Slashdot Mirror
The Rise of Netflix Competitors Has Pushed Consumers Back Toward Piracy (vice.com)
A new study from network equipment company Sandvine finds that BitTorrent usage and piracy is increasing after years of declines. The reason appears to be due to "an increase in exclusivity deals that force subscribers to hunt and peck among a myriad of streaming services to actually find the content they're looking for," reports Motherboard. From the report: Sandvine's new Global Internet Phenomena report offers some interesting insight into user video habits and the internet, such as the fact that more than 50 percent of internet traffic is now encrypted, video now accounts for 58 percent of all global traffic, and Netflix alone now comprises 15 percent of all internet downstream data consumed. But there's another interesting tidbit buried in the firm's report: after years of steady decline, BitTorrent usage is once again growing.
According to Sandvine, file-sharing accounts for 3 percent of global downstream and 22 percent of upstream traffic, with 97% of that traffic in turn being BitTorrent. While BitTorrent is often used to distribute ordinary files, it remains the choice du jour for those looking to distribute and trade copyrighted content online, made easier via media PCs running Kodi and select plugins. Back in 2011, Sandvine stated that BitTorrent accounted for 52.01% of upstream traffic on fixed broadband networks in North America. By 2015, BitTorrent's share of upstream traffic on these networks had dipped to 26.83 percent, largely thanks to the rise in quality, inexpensive streaming alternatives to piracy. But Sandvine notes that trend is now reversing slightly, with BitTorrent's traffic share once again growing worldwide. That's especially true in the Middle East, Europe, and Africa, where BitTorrent now accounts for 32% of all upstream network traffic.
According to Sandvine, file-sharing accounts for 3 percent of global downstream and 22 percent of upstream traffic, with 97% of that traffic in turn being BitTorrent. While BitTorrent is often used to distribute ordinary files, it remains the choice du jour for those looking to distribute and trade copyrighted content online, made easier via media PCs running Kodi and select plugins. Back in 2011, Sandvine stated that BitTorrent accounted for 52.01% of upstream traffic on fixed broadband networks in North America. By 2015, BitTorrent's share of upstream traffic on these networks had dipped to 26.83 percent, largely thanks to the rise in quality, inexpensive streaming alternatives to piracy. But Sandvine notes that trend is now reversing slightly, with BitTorrent's traffic share once again growing worldwide. That's especially true in the Middle East, Europe, and Africa, where BitTorrent now accounts for 32% of all upstream network traffic.
The irony of it all is cable companies exactly fit the bill for this, except they basically worked themselves out of their own market by abusing customers and refusing to give them what they actually wanted. It's doubly so since most (nearly all?) cable TV is now an on-demand stream anyhow. Even 'normal' channels are still an IP video stream, just without the ability to select a start point.
I wonder if cable 2.0 will come and be an aggregator of streaming services. I hope not, since cable companies are still utter scum.
Some streaming services are getting smarter and allowing an offline mode. THAT will drive down piracy if it's robust enough. Well, that and ending this idiocy of exclusive movies and all. It's one thing if you (netflix, amazon, etc.) make your own shows that only you host...but playing that game with movies? Broadcast TV shows? Yah...cut that shit out.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Every time this topic comes up people complain that "Well now I have to buy N number of services at the same time and that adds up to more than I used to pay for cable!". I call BS. Why don't you just subscribe to one (or two) services, exhaust all of their exclusive content that you're interested in, then cancel and move on to another service. Rinse and repeat. By the time you get back to the first service they should have a bunch of new content for you.
For the small handful of times that you need to watch a SPECIFIC movie or show RIGHT NOW you can temporarily subscribe to a service that has it, or buy the BlueRay or DVD.
Every time this topic comes up people complain that "Well now I have to buy N number of services at the same time and that adds up to more than I used to pay for cable!". I call BS. Why don't you just subscribe to one (or two) services, exhaust all of their exclusive content that you're interested in,
Because if I'm going to do the research to track down which streaming service has the content I want, I might as well make the extra click to download it.
Prior to Starz leaving, Netflix had a pretty decent catalog -- plenty of movies and TV shows I wanted to see. After that, their catalog has been getting steadily worse, except for Netflix produced content (some of which is really good). But when I want to watch something in particular, I don't want to have to go figure out which streaming provider it's on and then potentially have to sign up for that provider just for that content.
If it's easier to find content for free download than to purchase it legally, many people will chose to download it.
Competition is not what is bad.. competition is GOOD. Exclusivity is bad. Exclusivity is what leads to market fragmentation.
Trying to watch something calm like Mr. Rogers or Reading Rainbow with my son is frustrating on Prime when they stick a radioactive ad for their latest neon-colored jump-cut scream-fest abomination in front of it. I don't even understand - they're literally advertising things which I could watch on their service for free but am obviously choosing not to. Instead of getting ready to sing with Mr. Rogers or read with LeVar my son is changing his mind and wanting to whatever whatever the hell that was that I skipped as quickly as possible.
Now I pirate things I could watch with a service I pay for.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/g...
All these different producers need to stop thinking that THEIR offer is the only thing anyone could ever want.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The old adage is true, competition is good, but too much competition is bad and leads to market fragmentation.
That is wrong.
What is bad is exclusion, not competition.
The more companies manufacture a gadget, the more choice you have, the more they all are under pressure to improve efficiency (so they can offer lower prices) and to innovate (so they can offer new features), all in an effort to stand out from the crowd.
This works for smartphones, for cars, for almost all consumer gadgets, because all smartphones use the same carriers and WLAN and Bluetooth. All cars use the same roads and the same single-digit number of types of fuel. All electronic gadgets have the same power connectors. All washing machines take the same washing powders or liquids. You get the idea.
If you bring a smartphone that only communicates with other smartphones of the same type to the market, and somehow manage to get a double-digit percentage of consumers to buy it, and then two competitors do the same - then you have market fragmentation. But the cause is not that there are three competitors, the cause is that they are not interoperale.
The subscription service model is one of those business models that has market fragmentation at its core. It wants to be customer-hostile. Forcing as many people as possible to subscribe to your channel, perfectly well knowing that this will make them unsubscribe from competitors, is the business model.
From a consumer perspective, the only solution is to pressure those companies into abandoning a customer-hostile business model and force them into an interoperable model.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org