Skip to comments.A THIRD of bandwidth taken up by Netflix movie downloads
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 ...
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’.
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.”
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.
Maybe they saw themselves running up against bandwidth scarcity?
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.
Netflix takes a third only during peak hours, not all the day.
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.
That’s insane, that means only 1/3 of bandwidth is taking up in regular internet use? Cuz the other third is ... never mind....
Standard Oil is the reason prices were lower, they were run very efficiently. Other companies couldn’t compete so they sought rent from government.
Good gad. What the heck is there to watch?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ayn Rand tried to.
John Galt is a thinly-disguised version of John D. Rockefeller.
———————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.
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.