Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A THIRD of bandwidth taken up by Netflix movie downloads
Daily Mail ^ | 28th October 2011 | By Daily Mail Reporter

Posted on 10/28/2011 1:38:24 AM PDT by Niuhuru

Internet-streaming company Netflix experienced its biggest exodus in its history after a price hike earlier this year - the loss of 800,000 customers.

But the web-streaming giant isn't washed up yet. TV shows and films streamed via Netflix account for a third of total downstream bandwidth use in the U.S - an astonishing amount for any one company to control.

Neftlix use accounts for 32.7 per cent of total bandwidth use in the U.S., UP from 29.7per cent a year ago, says Canadian company Sandvine.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bandwidth; canadian; company; films; internet; movies; netflix; shows; tv

1 posted on 10/28/2011 1:38:27 AM PDT by Niuhuru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Increased demand for streaming services has caused some Internet service providers to crack down.

In the spring, AT&T started limiting its DSL customers to 240GB per month, and its U-Verse customers to 400GB per month — a move that sources called a ‘Netflix Tax’.


2 posted on 10/28/2011 3:18:13 AM PDT by Dallas59 (President Robert Gibbs 2009-2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59; Halfmanhalfamazing

It is logical that those who use greater bandwidth should pay more. Without capital to build the network infrastructure, rationing would ensue, and that would lead to more FCC intervention.

Which is of course, what they want. See “net neutrality.”


3 posted on 10/28/2011 3:23:26 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Netflix’s problem was in missing the lesson of Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller: when you have a product that is a hit, you LOWER prices ruthlessly, not raise them. Ford pushed the price of his Model T down to $450-—low enough for a common line worker to afford-—and Rockefeller, even as he got upwards of 90% of the refining capacity of the U.S., pushed crude and kerosene prices down tenfold. Netflix should have lowered prices, added customers.


4 posted on 10/28/2011 3:56:40 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
Netflix should have lowered prices, added customers.

Maybe they saw themselves running up against bandwidth scarcity?

5 posted on 10/28/2011 4:03:12 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave

Thanks Niuhuru.


6 posted on 10/28/2011 4:30:29 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
That flaw in Netflix's business model is what Karl Denninger began highlighting over a year ago.
7 posted on 10/28/2011 4:37:59 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LS

History has not accorded John D. Rockefeller his proper due, IMO. He was one of the greatest Americans ever. He provided a superior product (kerosene) to more people at an affordable price than all his competitors combined.

That product brought light to nighttime, extending the ability to read, learn, and work in an environment that before was not readily usable.

All the while saving more whales than all the environmentalists ever did.

Kerosene replaced whale oil (and candles) as nighttime illuminants.


8 posted on 10/28/2011 4:58:35 AM PDT by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

The report:
http://www.sandvine.com/downloads/documents/10-26-2011_phenomena/Sandvine%20Global%20Internet%20Phenomena%20Report%20-%20Fall%202011.pdf

Netflix takes a third only during peak hours, not all the day.


9 posted on 10/28/2011 5:20:32 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
I think the biggest issues Netflix was running into was the licensing from different studios being increased. they lost Starz already and with many corporations searching for means to return value to their shareholders, the price increase was one of the remaining ways to do this. It had been in discussing for quite some time as I've read and likely delayed as long as possible.

The way it was handled in concert with the split in services was one of the most incompetent business maneuvers I've seen since "New Coke", however. That one is going to continue to bite them in the tail for years.

They've got a HUGE (I'm series) target on their back for the bandwidth consumption. That's going to be a major issue for any future expansion and I'm betting it's going to hit their future growth potential severely.

10 posted on 10/28/2011 5:48:20 AM PDT by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

That’s insane, that means only 1/3 of bandwidth is taking up in regular internet use? Cuz the other third is ... never mind....


11 posted on 10/28/2011 6:13:27 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Standard Oil is the reason prices were lower, they were run very efficiently. Other companies couldn’t compete so they sought rent from government.


12 posted on 10/28/2011 6:15:19 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Good gad. What the heck is there to watch?!


13 posted on 10/28/2011 6:16:04 AM PDT by mewzilla (Forget a third party. We need a second one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb

I tell my students that deep in the Mariana Trench the whales have built a statue of John D. Rockefeller, and, like the Muslims, go on a pilgrimage every year to worship there for what he did for them.


14 posted on 10/28/2011 6:57:00 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

I understand, but the principle is, when in trouble-—whatever the reason-—you don’t raise prices. This was Amazon’s model (currently, they have other issues), but it was what got them their dominant market share.


15 posted on 10/28/2011 6:57:48 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Exactly. See Burt Folsom, “Myth of the Robber Barons,” although I’m convinced that in some of his consolidation Rocky knew exactly what he was doing and probably broke a few laws. But for the most part, you’re right, he thought of the little guy first.


16 posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:07 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

FreeRepublic!


17 posted on 10/28/2011 7:06:22 AM PDT by abishai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

porn?


18 posted on 10/28/2011 7:08:52 AM PDT by ken5050 (Cain/Gingrich 2012!!! because sharing a couch with Pelosi is NOT the same as sharing a bed with her)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LS

The big complaint by his competition was that his company was too efficient and made profits from lower prices than they could ever offer. lol. They wanted to double or triple oil prices.


19 posted on 10/28/2011 7:26:48 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

Crunch that number for a minute. 240GB/month.

A BluRay video stream runs about 40Mb/s.
A DVD video stream runs about 10Mb/s.
Run continuously (24/7), that 240GB/mo is 0.7Mb/s ... 1/54th the BluRay rate.
Run 8 hours a day boosts that to 2.2Mb/s.

Using your monthly cap to stream full-on BluRay bitstreams would burn thru in about half a day, or 2.2 days at DVD rates. Better compression (common for streaming video) gives a 4-10x improvement; we can crunch a full HD image to DVD bitrates with little discernible loss.

A movie a day (i.e.: 2 hours of video, any more than that - get a life) gives near 9Mb/s at that cap - about right for a good HD streaming image.

So...the cap provides plenty of room for 2 hours of daily HD viewing, or 8 hours of SD. Beyond that, you’re competing with your cable company’s main purpose: selling continuous video feed. At this point, there isn’t much else which demands such high consistent bandwidth. Can’t blame ‘em for instituting a cap; at that point just watch what they’re already broadcasting thru N channels instead of targeting a continuous video stream to one person.


20 posted on 10/28/2011 7:54:30 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: abb
History has not accorded John D. Rockefeller his proper due, IMO. He was one of the greatest Americans ever. He provided a superior product (kerosene) to more people at an affordable price than all his competitors combined.

Ayn Rand tried to.

John Galt is a thinly-disguised version of John D. Rockefeller.

21 posted on 10/28/2011 9:33:01 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: abb; Dallas59

———————In the spring, AT&T started limiting its DSL customers to 240GB per month, and its U-Verse customers to 400GB per month — a move that sources called a ‘Netflix Tax’.-——————

While it’s logical that users who use more should pay more, that’s no excuse for caps. I’ve noticed that many ISPs will do this crap where the bottom tier is not too much further away from the top tier in terms of bandwidth speed, but the price jump is considerable.

Capping is in my view the ISPs attempting to have it both ways. They have for years given people broadband internet usage without limits. Subscription cost is what it is, and the pipe is there to use no matter what you want to put in it. But instead of offering an incentive to their users, they offer disincentives. Instead of looking at their current offerings and noticing what’s wrong, they look at us as if we’re a bunch of thieves stealing their bandwidth.

This whole capping business is going to have the unintended consequence of an internet tyrant selling his dictatorship under the guise of neutrality. It’s sad to see it happen.


22 posted on 10/28/2011 12:29:04 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson