Non-IT News Thread

DustinB3403

So, again as I understand it, the source sends out one stream

That stream would have to be big enough to support every user.

Imagine 100 people in your house trying to use a 56K dialup modem.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Dashrender right, but they take in millions per month from ads, and having shows on demand (theoretically) can grow the audience, ergo more ad dollars...

Exactly. They make money for every minute viewed. The more minutes, the more profits. And the profits on "on demand" is higher than the profits on "live". The math is simple.

Ads easily pay for either type, but live is slightly more expensive all around to do.

OK I did forget this point - the fact that they can charge per on demand stream - so their income would grow as their viewership of on demand grows....

Dashrender

@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

So, again as I understand it, the source sends out one stream

That stream would have to be big enough to support every user.

Imagine 100 people in your house trying to use a 56K dialup modem.

While I think I understand what you're saying it's not really paramount to where I was going. No wait - actually it is. and with my original comment still stands - if all the data was coming from a single source, Yes the vendor would need a pipe large enough to handle all of those..

But the CDN is basically exactly what I'm saying is still needed - it's not one HUGE pipe - it's thousands of pretty good sized pipes. that connection still has to be paid for.

So - Why is it cheaper to use the CDN than it is to just stream from your own mega pipe? probably back to the peering points. making those large enough to handle all that direct traffic is likely more expensive than hosting and delivering closer to the end user.

DustinB3403

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

So, again as I understand it, the source sends out one stream

That stream would have to be big enough to support every user.

Imagine 100 people in your house trying to use a 56K dialup modem.

While I think I understand what you're saying it's not really paramount to where I was going. No wait - actually it is. and with my original comment still stands - if all the data was coming from a single source, Yes the vendor would need a pipe large enough to handle all of those..

But the CDN is basically exactly what I'm saying is still needed - it's not one HUGE pipe - it's thousands of pretty good sized pipes. that connection still has to be paid for.

So - Why is it cheaper to use the CDN than it is to just stream from your own mega pipe? probably back to the peering points. making those large enough to handle all that direct traffic is likely more expensive than hosting and delivering closer to the end user.

Because you can order a CDN pipe automatically and turn it off once demand goes down. That is how CDNs are designed. For literal on-demand use, and I need more pipes, give me more this second.

scottalanmiller

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Dashrender right, but they take in millions per month from ads, and having shows on demand (theoretically) can grow the audience, ergo more ad dollars...

Exactly. They make money for every minute viewed. The more minutes, the more profits. And the profits on "on demand" is higher than the profits on "live". The math is simple.

Ads easily pay for either type, but live is slightly more expensive all around to do.

OK I did forget this point - the fact that they can charge per on demand stream - so their income would grow as their viewership of on demand grows....

Right. So no matter how expensive it is, it's never more than the profits.

scottalanmiller

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

So, again as I understand it, the source sends out one stream

That stream would have to be big enough to support every user.

Imagine 100 people in your house trying to use a 56K dialup modem.

While I think I understand what you're saying it's not really paramount to where I was going. No wait - actually it is. and with my original comment still stands - if all the data was coming from a single source, Yes the vendor would need a pipe large enough to handle all of those..

But the CDN is basically exactly what I'm saying is still needed - it's not one HUGE pipe - it's thousands of pretty good sized pipes. that connection still has to be paid for.

So - Why is it cheaper to use the CDN than it is to just stream from your own mega pipe? probably back to the peering points. making those large enough to handle all that direct traffic is likely more expensive than hosting and delivering closer to the end user.

For all the reasons that I listed. Lower cost times, alternative network options, out of band data shipping, heavier compression, etc.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:

@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:

So, again as I understand it, the source sends out one stream

That stream would have to be big enough to support every user.

Imagine 100 people in your house trying to use a 56K dialup modem.

While I think I understand what you're saying it's not really paramount to where I was going. No wait - actually it is. and with my original comment still stands - if all the data was coming from a single source, Yes the vendor would need a pipe large enough to handle all of those..

But the CDN is basically exactly what I'm saying is still needed - it's not one HUGE pipe - it's thousands of pretty good sized pipes. that connection still has to be paid for.

So - Why is it cheaper to use the CDN than it is to just stream from your own mega pipe? probably back to the peering points. making those large enough to handle all that direct traffic is likely more expensive than hosting and delivering closer to the end user.

For all the reasons that I listed. Lower cost times, alternative network options, out of band data shipping, heavier compression, etc.

Which I was alluding to by the end of my post.

mlnews

Vaccinations jump 500% in antivax hotspot amid measles outbreak

“I would rather it not take an outbreak for this to happen.”

As of February 6, the county—which sits just north of the border from Portland, Oregon—has tallied 50 confirmed cases and 11 suspected cases of measles since January 1. The case count is rising swiftly, with figures more than doubling in just the last two weeks. On January 18, the county declared a public health emergency due to the outbreak.

scottalanmiller

Albert Finney: British actor dies aged 82
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47175304

scottalanmiller

Houston has a measles outbreak, too.

dafyre

@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:

Houston has a measles outbreak, too.

I'd like to get a head count of these outbreaks and find out how many who got Measles have been vaccinated and how many haven't.

RojoLoco

@dafyre not sure about Houston, but Portland is full of anti-vaxxers, so my money is on the outbreak is only affecting those people (the woo-woo hippies who don't trust peer reviewed science).

scottalanmiller

@RojoLoco said in Non-IT News Thread:

@dafyre not sure about Houston, but Portland is full of anti-vaxxers, so my money is on the outbreak is only affecting those people (the woo-woo hippies who don't trust peer reviewed science).

Houston has a lot of very poor and the Texas healthcare system is definitely set up to make it hard for them to get assistance, so it is easily nothing more than that.