Will Netflix Destroy the Internet? 577
nicholasjay writes "Netflix is swallowing America's bandwidth and it probably won't be long before it comes for the rest of the world. That's one of the headlines from Sandvine's Fall 2010 Global Internet Phenomena Report, an exhaustive look at what people around the world are doing with their Internet lines. According to Sandvine, Netflix accounts for 20 percent of downstream Internet traffic during peak home Internet usage hours in North America. That's an amazing share — it beats that of YouTube, iTunes, Hulu, and, perhaps most tellingly, the peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol BitTorrent."
Will posting inflammatory headlines (Score:5, Insightful)
destroy Slashdot?
It's well on the way - /. just isn't as relevant as it was years back.
Bandwidth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, how long before... (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry ... but I don't believe the guys who originally designed the Internet ever envisioned Netflix.
Re:So, how long before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long? What about your water company? I know in my area both of these apply. Which is why it's cheaper to have water trucked in than it is to use the old garden hose. If I was closer to a fire hydrant I could ask the water company to run a line and hook up a meter as well.
Or are you just a bit sore that your 500GB limit, which probably equates to 100 netflix movies a month will be used up? If you're watching 100 netflix movies a month I suggest you try using that other service called..
FRESH AIR.
Re:Bandwidth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you wouldn't expect that if there was any competition and the ISPs actually cared what the consumers wanted. Worse, I live in a major city, it's doubtless much worse outside of major cities.
Everybody is being paid just fine. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh noes! They're taking the bandwidth! Except everyone's being paid, and its still cheaper all around per movie than using the mail. The cable companies are being paid for internet access, the entertainment owners are paid for the right to distribute the content, all the equipment is more than being paid for - and everyone is making a profit.
The fact that it's using 20% of the bandwidth isn't alarming either - a movie is a lot of web pages/email/etc., but everyone involved can afford to keep the equipment running, and do a little infrastructure expansion to get more customers needs met, all to make more profit.
This isn't the end either - the moment some form of mass entertainment can be created that legitimately requires more bandwidth, and a service provider can successfully provide that bandwidth to unseat the other service providers, then they will do that, and will likely use several times more bits per second - and by then it will be even cheaper relative to the gasoline used for mail service.
The real alarm is that this process is making other forms of entertainment less relatively appealing to the masses. The cable companies don't like playing the role of bulk service providers in a realm they prefer to be premium content providers in - and thanks to monopoly powers, they're considering providing a non-neutral-net internet service in the name of "saving bandwidth" to fight Netflix's little game.
Ryan Fenton
Re:So, how long before... (Score:3, Insightful)
with 2^32 addresses?
Re:The answer is - Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Netflix is not Bittorent and has a well defined source which is a commercial entity. So the ISP knows after who it needs to go.
Netflix already pays its ISPs. There's no one for anyone to "go after".
Re:What happened to the Dark Fiber? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the dark fiber in the world won't help solve the Last Mile problem.
Re:So, how long before... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How does never work for you (Score:1, Insightful)
That's fine but if they can't deliver 'unlimited' bandwidth then they need to stop offering 'unlimited' bandwidth.
Unbelievable.
Re: Everything in canada sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
fuck back when I lived in Ontario they had a "sewer tax".. that's right you pay for the frigging sewer underneath your house in addition to your normal yearly federal and provisional tax
What, you think that pipeline is maintained for free? You think they treat your shit and dispose of it for free?
Where I live the sewers are included as a line-item in the water bill, but that’s just semantics. You’re paying for it one way or another.
Re:The answer is - Never (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what they SOLD us (Score:5, Insightful)
My ISP makes a point of saying it - "Streaming movies and TV shows". Right there in it's spiel. All the networks are rigged to favour it - our Last Mile is asynchronous, giving us more downstream than upstream, because they want us to be good little consumers and download content, not upload it.
And now people are making scared noises because it finally worked and people started doing it? And not just scared noises, deploying technical measures to counteract it? My ISP will throttle your connection if you download more than 750MB during "peak" hours ; exactly the time you'd want to be watching a movie. Good luck with that if the stream bandwidth exceeds your new bandwidth limit, which is very likely if it's an HD stream.
While I'm glad they are taking measures to prevent my connection grinding to a halt, I'm rather disappointed that they aren't upgrading their Last Mile enough to support it - especially as they make such a fuss about being "fibre optic" (to the cabinet, not the home, shame).
Re:So, how long before... (Score:5, Insightful)
@parent post, I know you are joking about ISPs but this story is really a covert PR story by the anti net neutrality people. This same kind of story was tried in the UK using the example of the BBC iPlayer bandwidth, trying to say it was a major drain on UK Internet bandwidth
Scare stories like this are used as a marketing chess move by the anti net neutrality lot of lobbyists. They want to charge for specific kinds of data and in the UK the next move they are playing is also aiming to earn even more from then also spying on the data (via deep-packet inspection) which is also needed to kill net neutrality. (The growing Police State in the UK is also seeking to use deep-packet inspection for its 24/7 spying on everyone). Deep-packet inspection has to be made illegal globally or they will continue to push to exploit it.
So to the idea "Netflix is swallowing America's bandwidth", I say, bullshit!, America needs and in time will have more bandwidth, so these reports are bullshit, no one needs to worry about these scare stories. Its like the old saying, follow the money, and the money people are behind stories like this.
Plus oh what a surprise, Sandvine, the creators of this so called report, (Two faced PR marketing move more like), already use deep-packet inspection, so they would gain from killing net neutrality and selling their services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandvine [wikipedia.org]
Sandvine you two faced bastards, we can see through your chess moves.
Will Netflix Destroy the Internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So, how long before... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know. This could be a GOOD thing. Previously, there seemed to be some stigma attached to high bandwidth users. Anyone who was using a lot of bandwidth was "obviously" doing SOMETHING shady. With the birth of services like this, it's starting to become quite common for regular old users to suck-up lots of bandwidth. I think the ISP's may finally have to pony up some dough and upgrade their infrastructure.
Of course, if they'd had a bit of sense,
Thing is, the ISPs are still pissed off that you are buying a legitimate service from someone other than themselves. So they aren't going to do anything that would make it easier for you to give your money to anyone who isn't them.
You are still "obviously" doing something very wrong in their eyes.
There is no way the ISPs (especially cablecos and telcos) will change their position on this and be customer friendly unless they are forced with a pretty big stick
And after the recent US election, I can't see that happening in the near future. Consumer protection laws seem to be pretty much the opposite of the Tea Party philosophy. Or GOP, for that matter (speaking as a non-american looking in)
Re:How does never work for you (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Sandvine's claims for Canada call into question their American data. Sandvine claims that Netflix accounts for 95% of data in Canada during peak hours, and this only a month after launch with a currently very small customer base. If they're going to claim such ridiculous and provably false figures (several independent ISPs have spoken up saying that, while they have noticed an increase, 95% is a load of crock), how can you trust their US data?
Re:So, how long before... (Score:2, Insightful)
My ISP is going to give me what they are advertising or I'll switch ISPs.
So you can do this once before you run out of ISPs, right?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, how long before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:4294967296 addresses should b enough for everyb (Score:3, Insightful)
I have 3 people in my home and 37 computers. I have a total of 37 IP addresses inside my lan, every one of those things are a computer. the 4 BLuray players are all computers. the Two big TV's are computers, the Apple TV's are computers, the 6 NAS boxes, the 2 Crestron processors, the 4 chumbys, etc......
I only need 1 to the world because I can use NAT. Some wackjobs think NAT is evil... I think they are wackjobs. I do not WANT most of my computers to EVER be directly on the internet. Even if I was given 10,000 Internet IP's I would still NAT and I guarantee most businesses will as well.
Dead, dying, sucks (Score:1, Insightful)
If it's not dead, dying, or sucks, the "new school" slashdot crowd just isn't interested. Observe how often attacking posts (i.e. posts on the offensive) get modded straight up to +5, regardless of usefulness, relevance, or let alone truth. Use the words "dead", "dying", "sucks", or "failed" for bonus points. Over-exaggeration is king, similar to what we see on TV nowadays. Over-exxageration gets you noticed.
The sad reality is that attacks are valued much more on slashdot than they used to be, and I can only attribute this to demographics. Slashdot is no longer a niche community of enthusiast geeks, merely looking to expand their knowledge by observing what others have to say. Today it's more like a high-school cafeteria where the ultimate objective is "look at me".
Re:So, how long before... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the problem. They want to MAXIMIZE profit from the bandwidth. Not get a good profit or healthy profit, but MAXIMIZE it in any way possible. Comcast does it by intentionally not upgrading their downstream paths. Even 10 years ago Comcast was capable of 10BaseT speeds Up and Down over cable modems to the headends for ALL the people in the area that headend serves. The problem is that headend is connected via fiber to a larger headend. That larger headend has another 5-10 connect to it, and a Single OC3 feeds 5+ cities if you are lucky for it to have an OC3. The area I worked in was selling 5Mbit service and I knew that the backend was nothing more than 2 bonded t3's that way too little bandwidth for the number of subs on that POP.
This is all true.
ISP's are screwing the pooch in increasing their backbone connection speeds. Until they get a LOT of complaints, they will continue to major oversell the available bandwidth. it's now well past the 100 to 1 ratio at most.
Thankfully, I can think of nothing else that will get the average American more in a tiff than their chosen source of entertainment suddenly not working.
Re:So, how long before... (Score:4, Insightful)
ha ha ha ha ha.... wait, were you serious?
Most ISPs are also content providers. Especially the cable companies. They don't like services like Netflix because it reduces demand for cable TV offerings. What they will really do is impose caps with overages or speed slowdowns. In the latter case, you can watch Netflix online, but after one or two movies, suddenly the video keeps buffering for a long time making it useless. In the former case, you watch a dozen movies during the month and then get a huge bill from your ISP because you're a "bandwidth hog." And if you don't like it? Tough, since you probably don't have many (if any) ISP choices where you live.
On one hand, ISPs have the option to pay to upgrade their networks which might bring them more revenue in the future or may help erode another of their money makers. On the other hand, ISPs could restrict your use of that "eroding service" and/or turn it into a money maker for them. Which choice do *you* think the ISP will make?
Re:Proof that people will pay (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, movie executives are working to close this hole as soon as possible:
Studios May Delay Netflix/Redbox Movie Rentals Even Longer; Offer Fewer Watch Instantly Choices on Netflix
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/11/03/movie-studios-delay-rentals-fewer-choices-watch-instantly-time-warner-premium-vod-2/ [slashfilm.com]
That was a close call -- for a while, people have been able to get the content they want how they want it, but the industry is taking appropriate steps to end that and make sure that consumers can only view content when the industry wants them to and how the industry wants them to.
Innovation legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
Deep packet inspection should be made legal everywhere, so everybody is pushed into encrypting everything all the time. Global adoption of encryption is a far better protection from privacy invasions like deep packet inspection than a piece of paper. Innovation before legislation, please.
Re:So, how long before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't have Netflix so I'm not sure what their bandwidth "cost" per hour is, but on Hulu an average 1 hour show is ~ 150-200MB.
That 36GB per month (and I'm assuming its GBytes and not Gbits that the limit is measured in), would translate to ~180 hours of Programming barring other uses, which I understand is unrealistic.
Assuming you only watch 90 hours of programming a month (a ~4.5 weeks a month that translates to 20 hours a week), that still leaves 18GB of "other" traffic (music, web, chat, VoIP (which should be less than VoD)).
For a single person, or a house where there is are two or more, but only one person is stressing the network at once, this should still be good (but starts to become an issue)
Throw in a bittorrent client, or a teen/child wanting to watch their own shows on their computer, and it could be a problem though. Chances are you'll see a hit in bandwidth and quality once that happens though. I watch how Hulu sometimes stutters and buffers a bit more when my wife is using Skype (now that she's discovered it :) ). Its one of the reasons I like "download and watch" models over "stream". It may take longer till you can see the show, but you have less chance of interruptions in viewing.
We've heard this before (Score:5, Insightful)
1990's: "Spam email is using up all the available bandwidth."
2000's: "P2P file-sharing is using up all the available bandwidth."
2010's: "Netflix is using up all the available bandwidth."
Somehow the internet survived and will continue to do so.
Re:So, how long before... (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>$1.50 per Gb!
So if you're paying $40 for 36 GB, that's $1.11. Yep they are ripping your off by raising their rates.
Re:So, how long before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where other countries are not just dropping fiber and lighting it up, the US's bandwidth is actually shrinking. You might get fiber drops in a few cities, but in most of the country, either one ends up with the same or less bandwidth. You also get tiered pricing, metered bandwidth, and additional fees, so it is more expensive now than it was five years ago for the same amount of MB/second.
If Netflix is "burdening" ISPs, then the ISPs better suck it up, call their Cisco rep and get some new hardware. This is what they are paid by subscribers to do. Not tack on extra fees and give up in despair.
Take a look at China, Japan, and Korea. People watch TV on their phones. Not just the local equivalent of Fox News, but they can hit a Web page and stream any movie they darn want to instantly. In full high def. Europeans can stream music via Spotify of anything and everything they care to listen to. Why is it that the ISPs in those countries don't wring their hands in front of the Diet/Parliament/National People's Congress of how they are being wronged by high bandwidth use?
Re:So, how long before... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can copy and paste your post as a reply to many subjects. It reads like an astrology prediction.
What exactly is your opinion on the matter of Netflix using a lot of bandwidth?
Re:So, how long before... (Score:4, Insightful)
If an ISP increases the amount of bandwidth to accomodate Netflix, there is no additional revenue in it for them. Therefore, as the previous poster asked, who pays for the additional bandwidth? I agree that there is no easy answer, but net neutrality and the fact that a handful of bandwidth-hogging services are consuming the bandwidth for everyone are directly linked.
The ISP should NOT be increasing bandwidth to accomodate Netflix, they should be increasing bandwidth because they (the ISP) have been telling consumers to get the fastest plan so they (subscribers) can stream video. Whether the video comes from Netflix isn't or at least shouldn't be relevant. It's time that ISP started backing up their advertising claims.
Re:4294967296 addresses should b enough for everyb (Score:5, Insightful)
I note you have no video game consoles, and so I assume further that you rarely play games on the internet, and moreover your 4 BluRay players suggets you rarely torrent either.
In short, it's no surprise you don't see the downsides of NAT. Meanwhile the rest of us who do required user level end-to-end net connectivity know that NAT is the devil [slashdot.org] and needs to die for the sake of the web. When you find yourself unable to use the latest applications and/or protocols, you will come to realize this too.
Re:So, how long before... (Score:3, Insightful)
2-3 movies of 90 minutes each a week ok let's see.
For a household of 4 people (not at all uncommon outside of /. readers), around one hour of video entertainment (movie, TV, etc.) per week per person seems like almost nothing to me.
And, if you are using Hulu, Netflix, etc., as a replacement for cable TV, then 5 hours per week per person isn't outrageous, either.