The should just deploy instances inside Comcast's network. Much more efficient.
They offered that and Comcast refused.
Well, they should do it so they don't have to ask.
Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
51–58 of 58 posts
Re: Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
#52Re: Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, it just means that you don't have to upload a whole lot of stuff to become 10% of upstream traffic.
That doesn't make sense; There isn't one pool of "upload" data and another of "download" data. Rather, there is one pool of data streaming from edges into the core (upload) and back out again (download). You can either attribute each chunk of data to its uploader or to its downloader, but in either case, the pool is the same size. Edit: or these metrics don't mean what I think they mean, in which case, please tell me…
From my understanding of the source article, these traffic numbers don't count servers. It's just the traffic of residential ISP customers.
Re: Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
#54Can't Netflix acquire Level 3 and solve their issues with ISPs?
LOL Level 3 is not the problem here. In fact they are on the side of Netflix. The regional ISPs are making big fuss, because until now they were sending about the same amount of traffic to Level3 as they were receiving, which allowed them to not charge each other for the traffic. As now there's more traffic coming from Level3 than goes the other way. As per their agreements would make them pay to Level 3 for the diff…
I realize that Level3 is on the same side as Netflix. The question was can Netflix play the same game the regional ISPs are playing. Let's assume Netflix acquires Level3. Since Level 3 is the backbone for a large portion of the traffic in this country, some Comcast data would have to go through Level3 to reach their customers right? So if Comcast throttles Netflix traffic, then Level3(now Netflix) just blocks Comcast traffic at the "backbone level". The question is theoretical. I know this is really bad for the end consumer.
Re: Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they should do it so they don't have to ask.
How, exactly, would they deploy their gear inside of Comcast data centers without Comcast approving it?
Network, not datacenters. Using this: https://github.com/stackmonkey/utter-va/#welcome-to-utterio-.... Pool is running here: https://www.stackmonkey.com/. It'll be a bit before we can enable significant deployments inside their network, but it will happen eventually.
Re: Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
LOL Level 3 is not the problem here. In fact they are on the side of Netflix. The regional ISPs are making big fuss, because until now they were sending about the same amount of traffic to Level3 as they were receiving, which allowed them to not charge each other for the traffic. As now there's more traffic coming from Level3 than goes the other way. As per their agreements would make them pay to Level 3 for the diff…
I realize that Level3 is on the same side as Netflix. The question was can Netflix play the same game the regional ISPs are playing. Let's assume Netflix acquires Level3. Since Level 3 is the backbone for a large portion of the traffic in this country, some Comcast data would have to go through Level3 to reach their customers right? So if Comcast throttles Netflix traffic, then Level3(now Netflix) just blocks Comcast…
You can't do that. If you are an internet middle man your job is to deliver traffic from one network to another. If you're failing at it then you're failing at your job and quickly someone else will take your place and you get out of business.
On top of that there are peering agreements which might also mention against that.
What's happening here is that ISPs such as Comcast already purposefully hurt their own consumers by providing sub-par service. No one else would normally care about it but to Netflix that's large number of their own customers and they're willing to bend backwards to be able to stream to them.
The problem is that there's really no competition so either we should remove laws and allow once again for competition, provide competition for example by letting cities provide Internet as well or heavy regulation (starting with title 2/common carrier) of existing monopolies, similarly how we do this to other utilities such as electricity/water/gas etc.
Re: Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
How, exactly, would they deploy their gear inside of Comcast data centers without Comcast approving it?
Network, not datacenters. Using this: https://github.com/stackmonkey/utter-va/#welcome-to-utterio-... . Pool is running here: https://www.stackmonkey.com/ . It'll be a bit before we can enable significant deployments inside their network, but it will happen eventually.
It probably would have been clearer if you just said P2P. Considering Comcast's low upstream bandwidth, I don't think P2P is worthwhile. And of course Comcast would find a way to thwart it.
http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/papers/2009-tprc-cach...
Re: Netflix takes up 9.5% of upstream traffic on the North American Internet
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
"TCP is more efficient than UDP if you don't need low-latency delivery, because you can compress more data at once and waiting for retransmitted packets isn't a problem." Would you care to elaborate what you mean by any of those things? I happen to have some background in protocols but I honestly can't make sense of any part of that sentence.
If you know that the receiver is going to receive all of the data that you send (or at least a lot of it at once, for example if you have a 5-second buffer), then you can more efficiently compress all of the media being sent. Typically, a UDP-based video stream will have less dependency among the packets, so that even if a packet is dropped, the next packet is still decodable. This means that there is more redundant…
"If you know that the receiver is going to receive all of the data that you send (or at least a lot of it at once, for example if you have a 5-second buffer), then you can more efficiently compress all of the media being sent."
That has nothing to do with the underlying transport.
"Typically, a UDP-based video stream will have..." "UDP-based streams also often have something..." "in UDP cases, it's often not worth bothering about... "
Here you're describing a bunch of possible properties a hypothetical protocol written on top of unreliable datagrams would/should have.
"I should say that this isn't about TCP vs UDP so much as..."
This part is correct. You should keep this part.
"..it is about buffered vs realtime streaming."
Right. Let's not conflate transport protocols with media streaming methodologies please.