Netflix is bigger than BitTorrent

[scandal 951]

Netflix Grabbing Greater Share of Bandwidth

By Jared Newman, PCWorld May 18, 2011 7:50 AM

Cable killer or not, Netflix takes a big bite out of bandwidth every night in America.

Netflix accounts for nearly 30 percent of downstream Internet traffic during peak times, more than any other source, says Sandvine Research (via Wired). Even when combined with upstream traffic, Netflix is still on top with almost a quarter of all peak Internet traffic.

In October, Sandvine found that Netflix accounted for 20 percent of peak downstream traffic. That means Netflix is getting more popular, either among existing subscribers, new subscribers or both.

This is great news for content providers -- or at least, it should be. As Sandvine notes, Netflix has overtaken BitTorrent when traffic is averaged over 24 hours. While not all BitTorrent traffic includes pirated material, the data show that people are increasingly more interested in streaming legitimate paid content than pirating it if the price is right and the delivery is convenient. Of course, TV networks and movie studios are still skittish about Netflix because it threatens their other business models, including cable, video on-demand and DVD sales.

TV service providers, meanwhile, are starting to wage their own subtle war on Netflix and other bandwidth-intensive services. This month, AT&T started enforcing bandwidth caps of 150 GB per month for DSL customers and 250 GB per month for U-Verse customers, charging $10 for every addition 50 GB once the user exceeds the cap three times. If you watch scads of streaming video, you might call it a Netflix tax.

Netflix also got into a spat with Comcast last December over the delivery of streaming video traffic to subscribers. Comcast wanted more money from Level 3, an Internet transit provider that delivers Netflix content, and Netflix tried to paint Comcast's demands as anti-consumer. The issue is more complicated than that, but it underscores the tension between Netflix and Internet service providers, whose television business is threatened by streaming video. In January, Netflix riled up ISPs again by ranking their bandwidth performance.

This is only going to get uglier over time, especially if Netflix keeps gobbling up a bigger piece of the bandwidth pie. But for now, just sit back, relax, and enjoy your "Parks and Recreation" reruns with everybody else.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is why I think the FTC needs to break up the monopoly that ISP's have in also being content providers. This is like letting your local telephone service provider deciding on what long distance service you can have.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This is why I think the FTC needs to break up the monopoly that ISP's have in also being content providers. This is like letting your local telephone service provider deciding on what long distance service you can have.

You can always feel free to purchase the land rights, cable lines, etc. and start your own fiber-optic ISP or whatever.

I don't like cable monopolies anymore than anyone else (though they aren't true monopolies when you consider DirectTV + DISH + Local Cable Provider, etc. all do the same thing) but they do put the lines into place and do a lot of work to get to where they are. Why should someone rain on that parade?

[rsn 135]

You can always feel free to purchase the land rights, cable lines, etc. and start your own fiber-optic ISP or whatever.

I don't like cable monopolies anymore than anyone else (though they aren't true monopolies when you consider DirectTV + DISH + Local Cable Provider, etc. all do the same thing) but they do put the lines into place and do a lot of work to get to where they are. Why should someone rain on that parade?

DirectTV & Dish do NOT offer the same services as your local cable provider. Consider phone and internet service, as two examples.

[Dan J 277]

You can always feel free to purchase the land rights, cable lines, etc. and start your own fiber-optic ISP or whatever.

I don't like cable monopolies anymore than anyone else (though they aren't true monopolies when you consider DirectTV + DISH + Local Cable Provider, etc. all do the same thing) but they do put the lines into place and do a lot of work to get to where they are. Why should someone rain on that parade?

Places with a publicly owned infrastructure tend to have much more competition between providers. Like the Utopia network in Utah.

Of course some people cry socialism whenever the suggestion of a city or state building a public communications infrastructure, even though it would provide more competition and choices to consumers in the end.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Places with a publicly owned infrastructure tend to have much more competition between providers. Like the Utopia network in Utah.

Of course some people cry socialism whenever the suggestion of a city or state building a public communications infrastructure, even though it would provide more competition and choices to consumers in the end.

much more competition and choices? how?

If one singular entity owns the lines (i/e the government in your case) then that entity still has 100% control at the end of the day.

"Publicly" owned is nothing more than giving government full control over your life. The moment it's 'publicly owned' is the moment that you lose control. That is of course like I said unless you want to go out and put in your own lines, etc..

DirectTV & Dish do NOT offer the same services as your local cable provider. Consider phone and internet service, as two examples.

both not directly no. They usually work in accordance with whomever the local providers are for those services. There again, a partnership is established between two entities who have a mutual self-interest.

For instance, even though AT&T offers U-Verse in many areas, they still offer DSL service as well. Sure it's the same company, but the product is priced accordingly for what it is.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

much more competition and choices? how?

If one singular entity owns the lines (i/e the government in your case) then that entity still has 100% control at the end of the day.

"Publicly" owned is nothing more than giving government full control over your life. The moment it's 'publicly owned' is the moment that you lose control. That is of course like I said unless you want to go out and put in your own lines, etc..

both not directly no. They usually work in accordance with whomever the local providers are for those services. There again, a partnership is established between two entities who have a mutual self-interest.

For instance, even though AT&T offers U-Verse in many areas, they still offer DSL service as well. Sure it's the same company, but the product is priced accordingly for what it is.

Networking or integrated systems work best when they are public domain rather than privately owned (with the exception of self contained systems). Roads, water and sewage, power lines, etc.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Networking or integrated systems work best when they are public domain rather than privately owned (with the exception of self contained systems). Roads, water and sewage, power lines, etc.

Really? Do they?

I trust a private company to keep lines updated, etc more than I do the government. I say that coming from a state with the best roads in the country even.

Just like Government can setup a road block any time they want on public streets, I'd surely hate to think of them owning the data lines as well.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Go pirates!!

[scandal 951]

This is why I think the FTC needs to break up the monopoly that ISP's have in also being content providers. This is like letting your local telephone service provider deciding on what long distance service you can have.

I think you mean the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), not the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

I do agree with your views about Net Neutrality, however.

Go pirates!!

Pittsburgh??? :unsure: