Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Netflix Dominates North American Internet

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the zomg-panic-panic-panic dept.

The Internet 301

nairnr writes "Accounting for 29.7% of all information downloaded during peak usage hours by North American broadband-connected households in March, Netflix Inc. received the title in the latest Global Internet Phenomena Report released by Sandvine Corp. on Tuesday. In its ninth such report, Waterloo, Ont.-based Sandvine found the amount of data consumed by users streaming television shows and movies from Netflix's online service exceeded even that of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing technology BitTorrent."

cancel ×

301 comments

Netflix (4, Funny)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157668)

Since Netflix uses almost 30% of the whole North American traffic during peak hours, they should really improve their technology. Most of the traffic is in peak hours. Instead of sending individual streams over the internet to every customer, they could develop some kind of protocol which could be used to broadcast all the streams to everyone at the same time. To make sure they don't clog the existing internet lines, they should lay down their own lines. Then they have full control over the infrastructure too. Broadcasting so many different streams probably doesn't work, so Netflix could instead start showing specific programs at certain times and people would tune in at those times to watch their favorite shows. For example once a week Netflix would show episode of every tv show and maybe movies at certain times and days. Since they own the infrastructure too, Netflix could stop worrying about all the different devices and just sell a product you put in your living room and use it to watch Netflix.

Re:Netflix (-1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157694)

you miss the entire reason Netflix is successful. They give what the Customer wants (control over what they watch and how they watch it), not what some middle manager wants to make his internet throughput look good.

WHOOOSH! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157726)

That went right over your head, huh?

Re:Netflix (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157750)

Whoosh

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157752)

WOOSH!

Re:Netflix (1)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157764)

Wow. Right over your head, huh?

Re:Netflix (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157844)

To be fair, there's no reason you couldn't use a staggered broadcast approach for Netflix and get the same user experience if you did it right.

  • When a user requests a movie, begin streaming the content from the beginning.
  • Simultaneously add the user to the most recent multicast group for that movie.
  • When the per-user stream catches up with the point at which the user's machine joined the multicast stream, you no longer need to stream data to that user because the user has all of the data from that point in the stream all the way up to the current point in the multicast stream.
  • At the end of the transfer, the client could then re-fetch any missing chunks.

Such an approach would dramatically reduce the traffic overhead, at the expense of a little additional code running on the user's machine.

Multicast? What's that? (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157940)

Simultaneously add the user to the most recent multicast group for that movie.

That'll become possible once it becomes possible to set up and tear down multicast groups over the public Internet.

Such an approach would dramatically reduce the traffic overhead

Exactly how dramatic would it be? Are most people watching the same film, or are people watching different films in the long tail?

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157904)

/facedesk

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158120)

Thank you for that.... I really needed that.

Re:Netflix (1)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157716)

"I'm not going to troll...I'm not going to troll."

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157896)

Allow me.

Instead of sending individual streams over the internet to every customer, they could develop some kind of protocol which could be used to broadcast all the streams to everyone at the same time.

Broadcast to multiple people at once? BRILLIANT! We'll call it broadiple or maybe multicast? [wikimedia.org]

To make sure they don't clog the existing internet lines, they should lay down their own lines.

Or they could build big antennas, and the people who want to receive it could put antennas on their TVs. Also an amazingly original idea.

Anything else ya got? Like a round things attached to objects to aid in their movement? Quick, get a patent!

Re:Netflix (-1, Flamebait)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157762)

in other words, you want them to become cable television?

Re:Netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157806)

Scroll up about 3-5 messages in this thread, willya?

Re:Netflix (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158158)

Why not? I get my internet from my local cable TV monopolizer.

Re:Netflix (4, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157816)

I like where you're going with that. Only instead of running over the internet, why not set up broadcast towers all over the country to beam the data straight to stand-alone computer monitors with built-in tuners?

Re:Netflix (2)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158128)

And, instead of charging each individual household make the feed free and ask the government to charge a flat-rate fee for each household.

Re:Netflix (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158262)

Tuesday May 17, @07:39AM, hal2814 sent into the ether:
>>>set up broadcast towers all over the country to beam the data straight to stand-alone computer monitors with built-in tuners?

Have that.
I get about 50 channels over the air (40 if you eliminate duplicates). It's a great service and costs me nothing but lets me see great shows like Smallville, Supernatural, Nikita, Stargate SG1, SGA, SGU, and SGI. Also Deadliest Catch from cable and foreign programming from Korea, Japan, Italy, and Germany.

The only "price" is watching a few ads, just like hulu works.

So how much of available bandwidth are they using? (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157874)

Being 30% of the traffic merely tells me there is a market there waiting for more competitors. What I am curious about is whose lines are they saturating if any? Is there usage becoming a burden on some and if so who are those weaker players?

What your asking for has already been done, they are cable companies. Next thing down the road we would see people screaming that NetFlix should share all those lines they put down and such and such.

While I agree they probably need to work on making content delivery more efficient we don't have those numbers in the article. Is there caching going on? How many sites are providing the data?

Re:So how much of available bandwidth are they usi (4, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158220)

Making content delivery 'more efficient'? WTF?

Do you know anything about VIDEO and AUDIO? ITS BIG DATA. And in 2012 it will be bigger, and in 2013 it will be bigger... Because people will be wanting 720 and 1080p. Better compression algorithms will only go so far so as to slow down the expansion of demand for that data.

Everyone on slashdot actually knows the truth, which is that our network providers need to be upgrading infrastructure AHEAD OF TIME. They are already behind current times with so much oversaturation, throttling, and capping to attempt to compensate.

WHY NOT JUST DO THE HONEST THING. UPGRADE INFRASTRUCTURE, PASS THE BUCK TO CONSUMER. THAT'S HOW HONEST BUSINESS IS DONE, AND LAST YEAR AT&T STATED THEY COULD DOUBLE INFRASTRUCTURE BANDWIDTH AT A COST OF $6/line. ( I'd urge less profits to upper exectives to afford it, but everyone knows that CEOs run America and its doey-eyed sheep that can't even spell anymore, let alone stop buying from walmart.)

Oh wait.... maybe they can get google to co-opt the upgrade by putting out an ad-sponsored version of internet connectivity! YAY! We can do it the new-american way!

*BARF*.

Am I the only person left that would gladly pay MORE for something BETTER? Must it all be chinese crap of poor design and quality assurance? How many appliances must we throw in the dump, and how many evenings must we sit through lag, for people to realize that cheap-ass business gets you cheap ass product!

Re:Netflix (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158142)

I think they should make it less susceptible to electrical interference and cut the programs into rolls of paper that can be replayed on a device that has some means of reading the holes and making the data come out of a replica of an analogue system for manual real-time input. This has the added benefit of using technology that we already understand well.

And the bartenders should wear frilly garters on their arms, to be ironic.

Re:Netflix (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158208)

And then, in phase two, Netflix could sell you a box that allows you to record a show to watch later!

Field of Screams (2)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157676)

If you build it, they will pay.

(Screaming is for the media conglomerates)

Re:Field of Screams (4, Insightful)

sl3xd (111641) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158094)

+1 to this.

Give people what they want at a price they're willing to pay. Everything is worth exactly what it's purchaser is willing to pay - and no more.

The media companies seem to forget that they've raised the prices to the point that purchasers are not willing to pay. Their customers are going to get the media in any case; it's just a question of whether it's paid for.

Re:Field of Screams (5, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158098)

Exactly. I use Netflix streaming a lot -- the price is right and I usually have no trouble finding something I want to watch when I want to watch it. I think the fact that its bandwidth usage exceeds P2P transfers is something the industry should notice. Many people are perfectly happy obtaining their content legally -- they just need an outlet that provides it at a reasonable cost without BS ads. If the industry doesn't provide, people will get it other ways (i.e., piracy), but if it is made easily available at affordable rates without advertising and its associated delays/annoyances, people will devour it. The proof is Netflix.

What? (0)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157692)

We must punish these freeloading thieves! They're stealing our bandwidth!

It only makes sense (5, Interesting)

whoami-ky (246318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157720)

Gee, they actually made it MORE convenient and people are willing to pay for it. Compare this to what the movie/tv studios do on a regular basis. They make it harder to get the content and people tend to find alternative sources.

The lights aren't all on upstairs, (3, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158298)

Gee, they actually made it MORE convenient and people are willing to pay for it. Compare this to what the movie/tv studios do on a regular basis. They make it harder to get the content and people tend to find alternative sources.

Hello!

The studios are the providers - Netflix is one of their licensed distributors.

Better still, the Netflix "app" is on the HDTV, video game console and set top box. The PC is sidelined and with it the BT client.

What I Don't Understand... (2)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157728)

What I don't understand is why Netflix doesn't go to a BitTorrent style P2P swarm type streaming. This would so much get them around how the cable companies are trying to screw them over for doing nothing more than providing programming that I want over a pipe THAT I PAID FOR.

Re:What I Don't Understand... (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157808)

yeah, because cable companies don't throttle bit torrent ever...

Re:What I Don't Understand... (1)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158068)

But Netflix streaming over BT would certainly make it hard for the ISP's to justify continued throttling.

Re:What I Don't Understand... (4, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157872)

There are probably more people whose ISPs throttle or otherwise disrupt BitTorrent traffic than there are people whose ISPs throttle Netflix traffic.

Add to that: It would result in more total data going across the ISP's network. It would make it more complicated to alter the stream quality based on your network performance. BitTorrent isn't really very-well suited to streaming, particularly when people are accessing the movies at different times. Since people are accessing movies at different times, it would more or less require that large parts of the movie be stored, at least for a while, on the end user's computer. That means their Web client, game console client, and other embedded-device clients (smartphone, TV) wouldn't participate in the BitTorrent streaming. It also means that they'd need stronger DRM and probably still would run afoul with the movie industry. The only real benefit, besides potentially saving Netflix some bandwidth, is that it would be slightly harder to attribute the traffic to "Netflix streaming movie" and would instead attribute it as "BitTorrent". (Bothering to do DPI would make it relatively easy to determine that the traffic was, in fact, Netflix.)

BitTyrant (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158006)

Add to that: It would result in more total data going across the ISP's network.

Unless the peer selection prefers nodes that are faster to you and/or share a longer IP address prefix. BitTyrant incorporates techniques like these, which end up choosing more efficient routes to spread pieces within an ISP as opposed to between ISPs. So the edge gets more data going across it, but the upstream doesn't.

Re:What I Don't Understand... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157962)

What I don't understand is why Netflix doesn't go to a BitTorrent style P2P swarm type streaming. This would so much get them around how the cable companies are trying to screw them over for doing nothing more than providing programming that I want over a pipe THAT I PAID FOR.

Why? It would completely break the current functionality of "pick program, buffer for 10 seconds, start watching program".

What would be brilliant is an option for devices with a capable cache (4GB or more) where you would command it to fetch the highest quality stream via P2P, and you simply had to wait for it to finish to start watching it. The system would then keep the file around for the next day or so (or maybe just keep 10GB worth of the last media you watched) and it would seed it for the rest of the cloud. Apply custom ports, a little encryption, and a signed EXE and hopefully it will take more than a week to be completely hacked and allow for any user with a valid login to permanently download any content and strip it of DRM.

What? Geohot is on the case? Ah crap. Never mind, back to locked down streaming we go.

Re:What I Don't Understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158064)

What would be brilliant is an option for devices with a capable cache (4GB or more) where you would command it to fetch the highest quality stream via P2P, and you simply had to wait for it to finish to start watching it. The system would then keep the file around for the next day or so (or maybe just keep 10GB worth of the last media you watched) and it would seed it for the rest of the cloud. Apply custom ports, a little encryption, and a signed EXE and hopefully it will take more than a week to be completely hacked and allow for any user with a valid login to permanently download any content and strip it of DRM.

Minus the signed EXE, and the need to strip the DRM, and it's already done. The custom port was119.

Re:What I Don't Understand... (2)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158000)

What I don't understand is why Netflix doesn't go to a BitTorrent style P2P swarm type streaming.

An ISP can use your traditional tv-cable easily to send you stuff, however uploading is rather difficult in many implementations. P2P/Bit-torrent-style distribution relies on uploading from the end-user. Instead, using a content delivery network through Level 3 communications, Netflix is able to almost have the "common" content "pre-delivered" to a more nearby location. This is good for the cable companies and users like me that still want a functioning internet when the nation logs onto Netflix in the evenings...
This recent Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com] explains some of this upload limitations and I found it to be a rather enjoyable read. Perhaps when the internet is ready and moved beyond the cable era, uploading will not be as much of a concern.
Disclaimer: This is not to say there isn't room for P2P like implementations or various improvements in current algorithms and models...just your traditional P2P / Bittorrent distribution might not be the best implementation (sadly) here. Also I am no expert, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express...

cheers

See also: recent video in a recent Slashdot article [slashdot.org] .

Re:What I Don't Understand... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158178)

You don't know what's between your local box and their server box. I would bet that somewhere along the way at least part of the network is doing some sort of multiplexing among multiple pipes.

What about Linux? (3, Interesting)

JMonty42 (1961510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157732)

Think what that percentage would be if they supported Linux, too.

Re:What about Linux? (3, Funny)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157768)

29.8%

I kid, sort of. ;)

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157770)

They'd have to rename themselves to GNetflix to get the full percentage boost.

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157774)

32%?

Re:What about Linux? (1)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157786)

0.1% more?

Re:What about Linux? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157792)

29.8 %

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157794)

It would be lower as it would be viewed as a "geek" thing :)

Re:What about Linux? (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157796)

29.700001%?

I'm not trolling—I use Linux and OpenBSD at home. I'm just honest.

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158196)

Are you kidding? I have a couple media PC's that I'd rather run Linux on if this worked; its the biggest shortfall; most other things like southparkstudios, pandora assorted websites with access to shows, etc. work because they are flash based; I can watch my files because there are codecs for most formats... no silverlight/netflix though, so I am stuck using Windows on these PC's.

And they're media PC's. There is no gaming to speak of - just music, videos, light browsing... would be great to kill the windows licenses in a fire (even if my wife and I do get student discounts etc, they only go so far to killing the costs)

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157802)

29.7%

Re:What about Linux? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157810)

Think what that percentage would be if they supported Linux, too.

You mean how many zeroes past the decimal point we'd have to use?

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157824)

It'd be about... 29.7%.

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157846)

Yeah, 31%

Re:What about Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157988)

100% of 29.7%.

Re:What about Linux? (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158080)

>Think what that percentage would be if they supported Linux, too. I don't know, for me it would not increase my Netflix traffic one bit. I use it in the living room with a video game console and never, ever on a computer.

Re:What about Linux? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158202)

29.71%

likely missing something--- quite sick but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157778)

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-traffic-surges-after-limewire-shutdown-110517/ not according to that.

J.

Should Read: Braindeadness Dominates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157788)

U.S. Internet [youtube.com]

Yours In Krasnoyarsk,
Kilgore Trout

Netflix...not for long (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157812)

With net throttling and pressure by cable and other internet providers for NO net neutrality (and the beginnings already of quotas), Netflix is doomed. And that's (part) of the point. The providers (Comcast, AT&T, etc) want to provide their own movie streaming services but with the big gorilla in the room, that would be Netflix, they see a problem. Thus they are already setting up tiers, throttling, pricing schedules, quotas, all to murder outside competitors for the services they want to (over) charge captive customers for.

Re:Netflix...not for long (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157892)

Honestly, I think it's high time the government cracked down on the fraudulent advertising. I get that the ISPs have limited capacity, but it's fraudulent of them to claim that they can provide it when they're so badly overbooked. Strikes me as a case of unfair competition.

Re:Netflix...not for long (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158132)

As long as they clearly spell out the limitations of their connection then I see no problem. But for them to give you a 5 Mbps connection and then put a 5 GB per month limit on it just seems, well, stupid. It is VERY easy these days to use up 5 GB in one month. And then you have offerings of 10/15/25 Mbps speeds with the same 5 GB usage cap... you just get to the cap a whole lot faster! /sigh

Re:Netflix...not for long (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158204)

Where I live, single digit GB/mo caps are more for wireless broadband (3G or satellite) than for cable. Comcast offers 250 GB/mo, which should be way more than enough for a 2 GB movie every night plus daily surfing.

Re:Netflix...not for long (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158290)

Where I live, my only option besides a personal T1 and satellite is wireless. The company I use (of the two available) has two tiers: 3 Mbps with a 5 GB per month cap at $45 per month or pay $70 per month for a 200 GB cap at the same speed. They're still better than the other company that only has two speeds at 512 Kbps or 1 Mbps.

The Real Netflix Fix (3, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157814)

The real Netflix fix, instead of streaming the movie within the tight constraints and impaired quality necessary to prevent buffering, would be for me to order up the movie I wanted that morning like I order up DVD's from them, have them remove a previous movie to make room for the new one, and then d/l it over the day. By the time I'm home in the evening, even a slow DSL line could have a true DVD-level copy available for watching without interruption. The next morning I order another movie or two and the old ones are deleted as part of the new ones arriving. Seriously, this would be such an improvement over the existing system and the expense of mailing much better quality DVDs could go away entirely.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157952)

I believe this is how both blockbuster online & cinenmanow on set top devices operate. Downloads are done in the background and you're notified when they're done.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157958)

The real Netflix fix, instead of streaming the movie within the tight constraints and impaired quality necessary to prevent buffering, would be for me to order up the movie I wanted that morning like I order up DVD's from them, have them remove a previous movie to make room for the new one, and then d/l it over the day. By the time I'm home in the evening, even a slow DSL line could have a true DVD-level copy available for watching without interruption. The next morning I order another movie or two and the old ones are deleted as part of the new ones arriving. Seriously, this would be such an improvement over the existing system and the expense of mailing much better quality DVDs could go away entirely.

Maybe for DVDs, but they also do blu-ray discs. For slower connections those would still be easier to just get the discs. There are also probably a decent number of people that only have internet on very slow connections or through the phone and so still will want discs. Also, a big reason that not everything is streaming is because of the content owner's not wanting it to be. So there will always be certain things that are only available via disc form. I have my doubts the discs will ever go away because of these among other reasons.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

sycorob (180615) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157964)

This would require me to plan ahead what I'm going to watch that night. In which case, I could just plan ahead a couple of days, and get the DVD itself. The beauty of Netflix streaming is that I can watch whatever the hell I feel like whenever I want. Hung over Saturday morning? Watch a bunch of episodes of an old show you missed. Want something on while you're doing homework? Watch a dumb zombie action flick.

The real Netflix fix is for broadband companies to get off their collective asses and invest in their infrastructure. I live in Chicago, one of the most densely populated cities in North America, and my broadband speeds are middle of the road compared to most of the world, and yet more expensive. And even so, I can watch HD movies on Netflix streaming after only a few seconds of buffering.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (5, Interesting)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157970)

Studios have put up with streaming because it's generally NOT able to be saved in the embedded and proprietary systems it's used in. Anything that saved locally wouldn't adhere to current copyright agreements, so it's not gonna happen.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158252)

It could still work. Currently, when you stream a Netflix video, a temporary copy does end up on your harddrive, and you could make a permanent copy of it if you were so inclined. However, the copy has built-in DRM which requires it to connect to the Netflix servers and request a key every time you try to play it. I see no reason why the GP's suggestion couldn't work the same way.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

TrailerTrash (91309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158266)

Not necessarily. Compare to the experience from DirecTV. ([rant] Netflix has NEVER, EVER had a movie streamable I wanted to watch. Ever. Anything made in the last 10 years and not mediocre or worse is never available for streaming. The only reason I subscribe is for Barbie movies for my kids. [/rant]), I order it and it slowly downloads, using available, low-priority bandwidth to "fill up the corners" as it were. When I want to watch it, I then actually agree to pay money, and DirecTV sends down a signal to enable playback. No reason Netflix couldn't do the same thing, using overnight bandwidth, always keeping 4-5 movies on my computer. On-the-spot instant PPV is available too, of course, this is just a super-convenient option.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158342)

Movies on XBOX 360 marketplace work exactly as the OP described. Theres no reason a netflix app couldnt encrypt and locally store the movie, if you can decrypt the cached content, you can probably rip the stream anyways.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157992)

This would work, and you could even start watching before the download finished. If they used multicast technology and a few regional proxies, the bandwidth requirements would go way, way down.

I'm sure their content license preclude any of the above.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158052)

This would be a nice complement, but not a replacement. The true value of streaming NetFlix is On Demand availability. Not 8 hours after demand. There's been a lot of times I get 15 minutes into a movie, decide it's too boring (or has Angelina Jolie) and then want to watch something else. Or I'm settling down to a Mad Max marathon... I don't want to wait 8 hours between movies, otherwise I might as well just go find the nearest Blockbuster.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158056)

By the time I'm home in the evening, even a slow DSL line could have a true DVD-level copy available for watching without interruption.

But some people demand BD-level picture quality, and that's why a lot of people still swear by DVDs by mail [pineight.com] . And among those happy with DVD quality, a lot of them use Wii consoles, which don't have a lot of built-in storage space.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158160)

I think you are missing the point with streaming. If I wanted to wait I could just as well wait for the DVD/BluRay coming in the mail. When I watch Netflix, I start my PS3 (or PlayOn while PSN is down) and look at movies available because I don't know what I'm in a mood for at that moment. Find one and click play and I sit and enjoy a movie for about 2 hours. Why should I schedule something like that way ahead of time?

But this might end soon anyway with all ISPs putting up a GB usage cap on their services. All streaming will end that way.. Pandora (which I love since my amp at home has it build into it!), LastFM, Netflix, Hulu, etc etc.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158162)

I ahve often wondered why this is not an option. I would certainly not want to lose the ability to immediatly stream something. For a PC/Xbox/PS3 obviously there is the HD and since most ROKU boxes and Blu-Ray players have a USB port it should be simple enough for the user to add enough storage via thumbdrive to make this happen.

The concern for the studios will be piracy which of course is 1) already a problem that this will not excaserbate and 2) fixable using encryption on the saved stream. Yes I know the encryption will get broken, but that is no different than how it is now with streaming and they can make themselves feel warm and fuzzy "knowing" they change the encryption via OTA updates.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158166)

Except that in your scenario all of the downloading happens during peak times. If you ordered it during the day and had it download it at night, it would be a different story.

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (1)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158172)

Can you imagine how much bandwidth this would waste when you consider how many times a film is started instantly and then abandoned after five minutes because of how crappy the movie is?

Re:The Real Netflix Fix (2)

yarnosh (2055818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158238)

DVD-level? Hmm, I didn't get a 46" HD TV to watch DVD quality video, I'll tell you that. But yeah, streamed NEtflix quailty is often pretty lacking. Some videos I can hardly read the text of the opening credits it is so bad. For any movie I'm serious about watching, I'm going to wait for the Bluray or Torrent it. Netflix streaming is just for watching random movies when I'm bored.

Why they are adding caps- Can't blame Torrent (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157832)

This is good. It means they can no longer say, "Bittorrent is saturating our lines! We need Congress to ban these pirates." Now the blame is falling on LEGAL watching, and there's no way they can get Congress to ban legal usage of videos.

So instead they are implementing 150 GB caps. :-|

Bastards.

Re:Why they are adding caps- Can't blame Torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158108)

[...] and there's no way they can get Congress to ban legal usage of videos.

What?!? You seem to have such little faith in our Congress. Sounds like someone's not Patriotic enough, COMRADE.

The Internet According to Sandvine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157852)

From TFA:
“Netflix has surpassed file sharing and BitTorrent, but BitTorrent hasn’t really declined,” explained Tom Donnelly, co-founder and executive vice president of network technology maker Sandvine.

In other news, ISPs plan to invest heavily in DPI gear and slow the Internet even further as it becomes readily apparent that they are losing the fight for online video delivery. Netflix and P2P combined dwarf other content sources -- I wonder why? Is it the lack of obnoxious advertising? The mysterious paucity of older episodes on places like Hulu in order to encourage DVD sales? The ability to view content on demand? A corporate board not consisting entirely of old men who screech that capital investment is a terrible thing to do to your bottom line if you want to see year-on-year growth?

OTOH (3, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157930)

As a snail mail Netflix user, I'll point this out: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a fleet of federally owned Grumman LLVs driving down residential streets and laden with DVDs.

Re:OTOH (5, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158192)

Also makes it easier to trace your couriers back to where they've bin laden.

Sandvine? (1)

SighKoPath (956085) | more than 3 years ago | (#36157944)

Isn't Sandvine one of the companies that sells IP monitoring, DPI, and throttling products? I'd take anything they say with an ocean of salt.

Re:Sandvine? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158126)

Seriously..."Hey, ISPs! P2P users are clogging your tubes with all their bits and their torrents and whatnot - buy our product or your tubes will be forever clogged! Er, what's that Bob? Netflix streaming outstrips P2P bandwidth usage now? Hey, ISPs! Netflix users are clogging your tubes..."

The prevalence of Netflix streaming should be a giant wake-up call to the media companies that, increasingly, this is how people WANT to view media. Not on an arbitrary schedule, or by having to buy 2-3 episodes of a TV show on a $20 disc, but by watching what they want, when they want, on what device they want. In a marketplace free of artificially imposed monopolies, internet providers would spring up to fill the void left by AT&T/Comcast/et al.

Instead, we get the media companies showing that they clearly don't "get it", refusing to innovate and instead relying on legislation and lobbying to "protect their IP", and the big ISPs refusing to upgrade their networks and instead relying on regulation and "where else ya gonna go?" to put as much money in to their executives' pockets before they jump ship.

It's no wonder that the cell phone and data networks in the US are the laughing stock of the technological world.

it's out trafficed pr0n??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36157990)

OMG, what's wrong with the world?

ISPs need to... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158016)

... start noticing and thus upgrading INFRASTRUCTURE, and not so it can handle today's usage (which they already can't handle) but TOMORROW'S use.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will pay more for what I actually want. Its when there is no choice and it is never what I want that I have an issue. Dropped from 8MB cable that is over-saturated to 3MB DSL that is only a little over-saturated. $20 savings, but I would gladly pay the cable price for the DSL if it was always ideal.

Re:ISPs need to... (1)

Hooya (518216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158136)

Yeah, about paying more:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/video-high-fiber/9263/ [pbs.org]

We already pay more than what others do around the world (at least in the developed countries).

Re:ISPs need to... (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158292)

Right.. I understand how american oligopoly is how Oil and Telco businesses gouge/rape us for money. We're all actually well adapted to being gouged. What we *want* is a little more product for such gouging.

Thanks for the backup.

interesting... (2)

Mr.Fork (633378) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158070)

The Netflix business model is proving that a payed-for distributed content is 'working' and successful model! Hats off for Netflix's ability to be innovative with client pull-on-demand content that is shifting TV and online media at its core. The mere $9 a month I pay (and that's ALL I pay for TV since I cancelled my cable) is a drop in the bucket to what I would pay if I could get more content.

What MPAA has to learn is that consumers like a business model where actually 'owning' DVD's is not a choice that most want. I've been also saying that Blu-ray is dead (long live blu-ray) ever since it came out. I really don't care to own a plastic disc with a movie burned on it when I can fire up my laptop or PC or Playstation or Wii and watch any move I want, anywhere I have an internet connection. Heck, my P2P downloading of movies and shows has fallen drastically since I subscribed to Netflix. Would I pay to have access to even more content - YOU BETCHA! Would I stop downloading if I could pay monthly fees to have access to quality Disney, Paramount, Sony, et al studio movies and TV shows? YES!!!!

If I, a lone consumer, can figure this out, why can't they? I just want access - irregardless how I get it. If I can pay for it, brilliant! If I have to pirate it to get access, so bit it. But it's their loss, not mine if I'm forced to be a criminal because the studios can get their heads out of there legal asses and figure out their market and customers are screaming to have access to their content.

Re:interesting... (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158270)

The mere $9 a month I pay (and that's ALL I pay for TV since I cancelled my cable)

Let me guess: You don't live with people who like to watch live news or live sports.

What MPAA has to learn is that consumers like a business model where actually 'owning' DVD's is not a choice that most want.

Unless they have single-digit-year-old kids who "wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh again, Daddy."

I really don't care to own a plastic disc with a movie burned on it when I can fire up my laptop or PC or Playstation or Wii and watch any move I want, anywhere I have an internet connection.

Except when traveling internationally. Your portable DVD player still works with the DVDs that you brought, but your Netflix device is IP banned. See other advantages of discs [pineight.com] that I gleaned from a previous Slashdot discussion.

Netflix (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158122)

Love it how the Silverlight haters say "show me one implementation of silverlight", well there you go.

Love Netflix, but... (1, Redundant)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158210)

I am still disappointed by the lack of HD films. At least give us 720p with 5.1 ... :/

Time for the movie studios to just STFU and accept reality. But they still want to go down tooth & nail while clinging to their concepts of copyrights, licensing, and royalties...

Bravo for pulling this off (2)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158218)

I remember in the early 2000s going,"If only someone could stream movies and television shows legally, they'd dominate." I told a couple people and a Comcast rep told me that they're rolling out,"On Demand" which as it turns out is moderately effective. I could never get the business model right to figure out how to legally stream movies without the movie makers going,"You can't stream out copies of our work at all." I even thought,"As long as I have one copy of their product per stream, that could be ok, right?" I never thought,"Open up a mail order delivery system, then transition into streaming later." That was the key to get to where they are now.

Re:Bravo for pulling this off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158284)

The problem with Comcast OnDemand is the free selection sucks and unless you shell out extra to watch a premium movie you get lots of ads.

Netflix is much better.

Re:Bravo for pulling this off (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158352)

Until Netflix changes its model to a low monthly fee for ad-supported content and PPV for ad-free content. That will also probably be the point that they suddenly have the catalogs of all the Majors available in 1080p and 7.1.

Re:Bravo for pulling this off (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158332)

I could never get the business model right to figure out how to legally stream movies without the movie makers going,"You can't stream out copies of our work at all."

That's the easiest part. You cut them in. Of course, that leaves you with shekels and them with ingots, but they're the ones who made the stuff the people want. The people are just tolerating the need to buy your stuff so they can get the studios' stuff.

so what your saying is (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158228)

So people would pay for premium content if it is served up fast enough and at a decent price and available to play on there computers or set top boxes (xbox/ps3/wii) rather than pirate it? Gotta find a new job FFFFFFFFFFFF!

- MPAA Lawyer

Cable TV Bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158260)

How much data is being pushed over Cable TV broadcasts and On-Demand programming?

I bet that completely dwarfs the amount that Netflix pushes.

If I were Comcast, I would buy Netflix out quick, assuming the new FCC allows it after being lobbied by the old FCC chairman.

Triumph of DRM? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158288)

So 30% of all Internet traffic is DRMd video, and is beating non-DRMd, free-as-in-beer video.

OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36158336)

Now go to congress and explain, why letting Comcast buy NBC rather than upgrade their network for the bandwidth we should have for such services, is a bad idea for every one, including Comcast.

Doing my part (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36158346)

I work at home and have stopped using my home office in favor of the couch -- while streaming from Netflix all day long. Reruns of X-Files, Dr. Who and Twilight Zone are dominating this week. I don't watch many movies during working hours, but TV shows don't require any real attention, so I can watch while working and not be distracted.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...