Is this the logical conclusion? Everyone puts a CDN box inside the local ISP?
Doesn't this cease to scale at some point?
Doesn't this cease to scale at some point?
At the moment netflix is 50% of internet bandwidth.
If that could be delivered from a CDN within the ISP, that takes a majority of traffic off the congested pipes and leaves enough room for all the current demand with quite a bit of overhead.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans...
People spend more time watching TV as they do working on average. [34 + 3 = 37]
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm
34.5 hour work week average
Further, netflix watchers are almost entirely composed of former/would-be TV watchers who ultimately end up spending less time in front of the tube because they avoid commercials entirely (adding up to a ton of time in aggregate) as well as at their leisure instead of when the TV guide demands they stop what they're doing to catch their show.
It is more like 32%. The 50% number was all video.
> If that could be delivered from a CDN within the ISP, that takes a majority of traffic off the congested pipes and leaves enough room for all the current demand with quite a bit of overhead.
For how long?
Every year the hardware vendors come out with faster equipment which makes bandwidth cheaper which causes people to use more. If they won't upgrade the interconnects then all removing Netflix does is buy a little time until the interconnect gets saturated again. When that happens you can't remove the Netflix traffic again, so someone else will be forced to pay, who will be smaller than Netflix and therefore their paying the danegeld will buy even less time for everyone else.
Meanwhile, providers pocket the extra money from 20 years of Moores law while nobody on the last mile benefits. It's pretty clear that in the last decades, running an ISP can only have gotten ridiculously easier. And here they are not wanting to provide interconnect bandwidth.
And the 50mbit domestic connections wasn't at all common 20 years ago (heck, we did have 33.6kbps dial-up and it cost a fortune). In fact, if you say that there haven't been large, fast changes in bandwidth terms then I'd invite you to revisit the following facts:
- Smartphones in every pocket, with people consuming 1-2 GB a month. This was unthinkable 7 years ago — and I vividly recall spending a ton of money because I used 1 GB of mobile internet. - 4G in every corner — just a few years ago the top was the 384kbps UMTS - FTTH and DOCSIS 3.0 ubiquitous, mainly to lowered costs for fiber equipment, GPON lowers the cost and tougher fiber cables that can easily be installed in houses - Ten-fold growth in internet provides bandwidth… or more. For example, <10 years ago, OVH's network (one of the largest dedicated server providers in the world) was one of the largest at 300Gbps (I remember the party when they reached out that capacity!). Now they are at +3Tbps and growing. - 1080p and 4K increasingly common — and then a decade ago we were still buying CRT televisions, a far cry from the FHD and higher bitrate contents
I could keep going with the list… But the fact is: everywhere you look bandwidth is getting cheaper AND faster, same goes for consumer devices that profit said bandwidth (TVs, smartphones…) and that comes in hand with more, richer content.
Yes, peasant in Romania is able to get 1Gbit FTTH for 20 Euro in rural nowhere while at the same time hipster in downtown NY will be happy to get 30Mbit bundled with shitty cable at $150.
I don't see how the former is better than the latter from a net neutrality point of view. In both cases, Netflix's humongous traffic is being treated as a special case, and in both cases Netflix is paying to deal with it.
Netflix isn't shoving their packets down anyone's throat here, the ISP's whining notwithstanding.
Please be careful on this, at least until the NN debate is settled. Words are important.
Pizza delivers to me. Amazon delivers to me. NewEgg delivers to me.
Please provide a counter example that implies what you suggest? All of these imply the first noun delivers something requested by the second noun. I'm uncertain why that is unclear?