Non-IT News Thread
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Disney+ will be a true Netflix competitor, with non-Disney shows streaming, too
Every Disney brand is making shows, but the service won't just have Disney stuff.
The more we learn about Disney's new streaming TV and movie service, the more ambitious it sounds. Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors on the company's quarterly earnings call that the service (called Disney+) will host TV shows and movies licensed from other parties in addition to content being made in-house by Disney properties like Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios.
So - where cable aggregated it all together in a single bill - single service, now we're left with dozens of services and likely a much bigger bill than before - assuming you want it all. Granted most will choose to have fewer services than cable provided...
Pretty much. But it still works out good for the consumer because we can pick and choose what we want, and not get stuck with 500 channels of nothing to watch.
Do you think that is really an option? Even with services like SlingTV there are channels in there I would never watch. But I'm still forced to have them as a part of even their lowest cost package.
that can never not be the case though. All services that aren't dedicated to one very specific thing - let's just say Star Trek TV (fake) for example - and even though someone might not want Voyager, but want the rest - and yet they are stuck paying for their Voyager access anyway.
-
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dafyre said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Disney+ will be a true Netflix competitor, with non-Disney shows streaming, too
Every Disney brand is making shows, but the service won't just have Disney stuff.
The more we learn about Disney's new streaming TV and movie service, the more ambitious it sounds. Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors on the company's quarterly earnings call that the service (called Disney+) will host TV shows and movies licensed from other parties in addition to content being made in-house by Disney properties like Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios.
So - where cable aggregated it all together in a single bill - single service, now we're left with dozens of services and likely a much bigger bill than before - assuming you want it all. Granted most will choose to have fewer services than cable provided...
Pretty much. But it still works out good for the consumer because we can pick and choose what we want, and not get stuck with 500 channels of nothing to watch.
Do you think that is really an option? Even with services like SlingTV there are channels in there I would never watch. But I'm still forced to have them as a part of even their lowest cost package.
My family is that way now... We don't have any bundled channels that we don't want. I'm not saying the bundles are completely gone... But now, I don't have to pay $60 / month to have 120 channels (this was my last cable package) and only watch 4 of them. You also can get Disney, or HBO, or ShowTime, or ESPN, or several other things that you may want -- without needing SlingTV or a Cable subscription.
If I wanted to watch Game of Thrones (just an example, calm down, lol)... I'd just pay for HBOGo. problem solved... There's a lot of channels like that.
For those of us with Rokus (or Android TV or Apple TV), we have it a little easier. Some cable channels offer the line up of shows without even asking you to have a cable subscription. CW is one.
I'm curious how CW does it? non live streaming has to be expensive as hell! Live streaming by contrast should be super cheap - multicasting - one stream out sent to all subscribers.
I can see how broadcast TV makes sense - reaching one customer or 10,000,000 is the same price for the broadcasting, but non live streaming likely means paying huge internet fees based upon usage.
If they (CW) isn't charging a fee - I'm not sure how they survive? Hard to believe ads are enough to cover both live broadcasting AND the internet non-live streaming (think On-Demand).
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm curious how CW does it? non live streaming has to be expensive as hell! Live streaming by contrast should be super cheap - multicasting - one stream out sent to all subscribers.
That's not how networking works.
Live cannot be cached and the full data load has to be delivered everywhere, all at once. Multicasting is a mechanism for that, but not a panacea. They are still on the hook for all of that data.
Non-live allows for caching and delivery from "the edge" and while using a different mechanism means that far less data in total has to be delivered.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm curious how CW does it? non live streaming has to be expensive as hell! Live streaming by contrast should be super cheap - multicasting - one stream out sent to all subscribers.
That's not how networking works.
Live cannot be cached and the full data load has to be delivered everywhere, all at once. Multicasting is a mechanism for that, but not a panacea. They are still on the hook for all of that data.
Of course they are - though I'm not sure exactly what you mean "all of that data" - do you mean the single stream they send out? in that case of course I say - duh.
Non-live allows for caching and delivery from "the edge" and while using a different mechanism means that far less data in total has to be delivered.
Does it really? The data still has to get from the main central source to the edge servers.
Maybe what's happening is that the ISPs are giving the vendor a discount by placing caching servers on their network so the traffic doesn't have to keep hitting their peering point - but those caching servers aren't free, the bandwidth they use isn't free, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Does it really?
Yes. That is what Content Delivery Networks or CDNs are for.
They lessen the burden on a single provider and allow content to be delivered from multiple sources.
-
CDN cost isn't that expensive. On the low end $1200 a month.
It's nothing compared to the amount of ad revenue being produced on their websites etc.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
CDN cost isn't that expensive. On the low end $1200 a month.
It's nothing compared to the amount of ad revenue being produced on their websites etc.
We're not talking about webpages here - we're talking about streaming video. Bills likely to be in the 100's of thousands a month or more.
-
@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...
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
CDN cost isn't that expensive. On the low end $1200 a month.
It's nothing compared to the amount of ad revenue being produced on their websites etc.
We're not talking about webpages here - we're talking about streaming video. Bills likely to be in the 100's of thousands a month or more.
Is netflix not a web streaming service that has a WEBSITE AND CONTENT CAN BE STREAMED DIRECTLY FROM IT?!!
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm curious how CW does it? non live streaming has to be expensive as hell! Live streaming by contrast should be super cheap - multicasting - one stream out sent to all subscribers.
That's not how networking works.
Live cannot be cached and the full data load has to be delivered everywhere, all at once. Multicasting is a mechanism for that, but not a panacea. They are still on the hook for all of that data.
Of course they are - though I'm not sure exactly what you mean "all of that data" - do you mean the single stream they send out? in that case of course I say - duh.
It's NOT a single stream, that's the thing. It's a stream to every end user. Multicast can't change that.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm curious how CW does it? non live streaming has to be expensive as hell! Live streaming by contrast should be super cheap - multicasting - one stream out sent to all subscribers.
That's not how networking works.
Live cannot be cached and the full data load has to be delivered everywhere, all at once. Multicasting is a mechanism for that, but not a panacea. They are still on the hook for all of that data.
Of course they are - though I'm not sure exactly what you mean "all of that data" - do you mean the single stream they send out? in that case of course I say - duh.
Non-live allows for caching and delivery from "the edge" and while using a different mechanism means that far less data in total has to be delivered.
Does it really? The data still has to get from the main central source to the edge servers.
Only once, and often through special channels. And with loads of compression and the ability to wait for available, lower cost bandwidth.
CDNs really do make it cheaper.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Maybe what's happening is that the ISPs are giving the vendor a discount by placing caching servers on their network so the traffic doesn't have to keep hitting their peering point - but those caching servers aren't free, the bandwidth they use isn't free, etc.
Why would it need to be free? Just has to be cheaper.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
CDN cost isn't that expensive. On the low end $1200 a month.
It's nothing compared to the amount of ad revenue being produced on their websites etc.
We're not talking about webpages here - we're talking about streaming video. Bills likely to be in the 100's of thousands a month or more.
Yes, but no matter what it is, it is likely much less than the streaming live costs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Maybe what's happening is that the ISPs are giving the vendor a discount by placing caching servers on their network so the traffic doesn't have to keep hitting their peering point - but those caching servers aren't free, the bandwidth they use isn't free, etc.
Why would it need to be free? Just has to be cheaper.
And that is what CDNs do. Imagine if CDNs didn't exist and Netflix had to have that much bandwidth direct to their office.
. . .
Just offload it to a CDN, so much cheaper.
-
@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.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
Maybe what's happening is that the ISPs are giving the vendor a discount by placing caching servers on their network so the traffic doesn't have to keep hitting their peering point - but those caching servers aren't free, the bandwidth they use isn't free, etc.
Why would it need to be free? Just has to be cheaper.
And that is what CDNs do. Imagine if CDNs didn't exist and Netflix had to have that much bandwidth direct to their office.
. . .
Just offload it to a CDN, so much cheaper.
In the case of someone like Netflix, it's their own CDN as well, not a third party. Most of us use third parties. but all the same difference. But for huge content things like Netflix, they can do things like crazy compression rates to seed the edge networks or even ship hard drives around to reduce cost, if they want.
Netflix has weeks or months of warning on new content becoming licensed. They can easily push out the majority of their content without even hitting the Internet.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
I'm curious how CW does it? non live streaming has to be expensive as hell! Live streaming by contrast should be super cheap - multicasting - one stream out sent to all subscribers.
That's not how networking works.
Live cannot be cached and the full data load has to be delivered everywhere, all at once. Multicasting is a mechanism for that, but not a panacea. They are still on the hook for all of that data.
Of course they are - though I'm not sure exactly what you mean "all of that data" - do you mean the single stream they send out? in that case of course I say - duh.
It's NOT a single stream, that's the thing. It's a stream to every end user. Multicast can't change that.
really? that's not how I understood multicast to work.
As I understand it - devices subscribe to a multicast channel (I'm sure this is the wrong word). Then the routers and switches pass the single outgoing multicast to the subscribers.
So, again as I understand it, the source sends out one stream, the upstream routers send copies to all subscribed upstream routers, who again send copies to all of their upstream subscribers, etc etc until the file router sends it to their locally subscribed end users.
Is that completely wrong?
-
@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.
-
@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....
-
@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.
