Who Killed the Great American Cable-TV Bundle?

That's not really how video hosting works. These companies work with backends like AWS (Amazon) to push video to clients. They have HUGE data centers in several parts of the country to serve video. ATT isn't hosting DirectvNOW on its own.
Depends on the service, NetFlix offers up caching servers to any ISP that will agree to have one. The caching server is placed inside the ISPs network which reduces the amount of traffic that crosses the peering points. A couple of the larger ISPs have refused caching servers because they want to point to NetFlix as a network abuser and charge NetFlix and the end point customer for bandwidth.

Other large streaming providers have similar setups using Akamai and other CDNs.
 
Depends on the service, NetFlix offers up caching servers to any ISP that will agree to have one. The caching server is placed inside the ISPs network which reduces the amount of traffic that crosses the peering points. A couple of the larger ISPs have refused caching servers because they want to point to NetFlix as a network abuser and charge NetFlix and the end point customer for bandwidth.

Other large streaming providers have similar setups using Akamai and other CDNs.

Yes, exactly right, and thank you for clarifying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Keep in mind 20 years ago the 2 bills customers had to deal with where television and a home phone.

The home phone bill went away and was replaced with a cell phone bill and Your Tv service is replaced with internet and a handful of streaming services.

People are still spending the money but in different places.

As far as cellular bills, even though the cost has gone down for the service, most people finance their cell phones these days which in some cases is 50% of the bill.

When you factor other things, people don’t have the money and that’s why we have cord cutters

Those of us in rural areas still do have two phone bills. My choices are to have poor (Verizon, Sprint) reception or zero (AT&T, T-Mobile) reception at home. So I have Spectrum Voice. $30 a month minus the $10 bundling discount gives me home phone for $20. $130 a month minus Kick Back gives me a T-Mobile bill of $120 for unlimited* everything. I refuse to finance a cell phone, that is just plain stupid. I’ll buy the phone at full price and resell it when I’m done.

Kind of funny, with Spectrum, Gig Service and Voice is $145. No much more then I’m paying T-Mobile for much lesser service.

Even if I had decent cell phone reception, no way who I drop the landline. Not that I talk on the phone much, but the voice quality from landline to landline cannot compare with the crappy call quality of cell phones. It shouldn’t surprise me though that people take what’s cool, hip and in versus quality. After all, the SACD/DVD-A format war could have ushered in an era of discreet multichannel music, instead we wound up with 128k MP3s.
 
Depends on the service, NetFlix offers up caching servers to any ISP that will agree to have one. The caching server is placed inside the ISPs network which reduces the amount of traffic that crosses the peering points. A couple of the larger ISPs have refused caching servers because they want to point to NetFlix as a network abuser and charge NetFlix and the end point customer for bandwidth.

Other large streaming providers have similar setups using Akamai and other CDNs.

If I was an ISP, I wouldn’t want Netflix servers on my network either considering the amount of money they cost ISP’s in excessive bandwidth.
 
Those of us in rural areas still do have two phone bills. My choices are to have poor (Verizon, Sprint) reception or zero (AT&T, T-Mobile) reception at home. So I have Spectrum Voice. $30 a month minus the $10 bundling discount gives me home phone for $20. $130 a month minus Kick Back gives me a T-Mobile bill of $120 for unlimited* everything. I refuse to finance a cell phone, that is just plain stupid. I’ll buy the phone at full price and resell it when I’m done.

Kind of funny, with Spectrum, Gig Service and Voice is $145. No much more then I’m paying T-Mobile for much lesser service.

Even if I had decent cell phone reception, no way who I drop the landline. Not that I talk on the phone much, but the voice quality from landline to landline cannot compare with the crappy call quality of cell phones. It shouldn’t surprise me though that people take what’s cool, hip and in versus quality. After all, the SACD/DVD-A format war could have ushered in an era of discreet multichannel music, instead we wound up with 128k MP3s.

Isn't Spectrum Voice a VOIP? Is that considered a landline?
 
I'm really not sure what you would consider cable telephony. While it's not POTS that's for sure, it is a land-based connection. And yes, if the cable infrastructure gets taken out you'll lose both services, but there was a time or two that Time Warner was having technical problems on their end and the internet as out but phone kept working.
 
I had a Betamax. Briefly. It was stolen before I could hook it up. I found out who did it. Cop didn’t pursue because he had just shot someone, and shall we say, his heart wasn’t in it.

I then bought a VHS.

I have a few DVD-A and SACD discs. Love them.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
I had a Betamax. Briefly. It was stolen before I could hook it up. I found out who did it. Cop didn’t pursue because he had just shot someone, and shall we say, his heart wasn’t in it.

I then bought a VHS.

I have a few DVD-A and SACD discs. Love them.


Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!

I still have a couple BETA and a couple VHS, plus a dual deck. But I record on DVD more these days.The pq is so much better. I do have a lot of material on video tape that has been been released to DVD.
 
I still have a couple BETA and a couple VHS, plus a dual deck. But I record on DVD more these days.The pq is so much better. I do have a lot of material on video tape that has been been released to DVD.

My parents had a bunch of 8 mm movies which they paid to have put on VHS. Later, I transferred them to DVD. Last year, my brother put them on a thumb drive. Next year, well, it's hard to keep up with technology sometimes.
 
That's not really how video hosting works. These companies work with backends like AWS (Amazon) to push video to clients. They have HUGE data centers in several parts of the country to serve video. ATT isn't hosting DirectvNOW on its own.

While it may be true AT&T is probably hosting DNow in non-AT&T datacenters, although maybe not as AT&T has plenty of their own datacenters and their own cloud platform and CDN, I am certain that virtually all of AWS's, Google's, and Microsoft's datacenters are going to be on-net for AT&T. If the traffic leaving those locations is destined for an AT&T subscriber, it is most likely going to go across AT&T's network connection unless there is a reason not to. They will weight those BGP route definitions accordingly.

If the DNow sub is not an AT&T customer, then it will just go across the internet using whatever CDN(s) they use.
 
If I was an ISP, I wouldn’t want Netflix servers on my network either considering the amount of money they cost ISP’s in excessive bandwidth.

If I was an ISP, I would want Netflix OpenConnect servers on my network specifically to reduce the need to have bigger interconnection pipes to the rest of the Internet. The Netflix servers reduce bandwidth at peering points, not increase it. Behaving otherwise is just peeing in the wind. Netflix isn't going away, so find the best way to reduce the cost to your ISP business.
 
If I was an ISP, I would want Netflix OpenConnect servers on my network specifically to reduce the need to have bigger interconnection pipes to the rest of the Internet. The Netflix servers reduce bandwidth at peering points, not increase it. Behaving otherwise is just peeing in the wind. Netflix isn't going away, so find the best way to reduce the cost to your ISP business.
But that would violate net neutrality

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
But that would violate net neutrality

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

How? My ISP wouldn't be prioritizing Netflix's traffic across my network over any other traffic. All the Open Connect CDN servers do it make it unnecessary for the traffic to leave my ISP's network. This is effectively how all CDNs work. CDNs do not violate Net Neutrality. Allowing peering points to become oversubscribed and expressly using that to extort money from content providers did violate NN.

Here's the thing with all the ISPs who throttled Netflix: when they signed up to be an ISP, they were agreeing to be a dumb pipe in a regulated industry (telecommunications). The fact that they later decided they didn't want to be a dumb pipe any more, for whatever reason, is immaterial. If they didn't want to provide enough bandwidth to keep the packets flowing during peak times, then they should've suffered the consequences by losing customers.

Unfortunately, in most of the US, broadband ISPs are effectively monopolies. If you are a monopoly in the US, you either get regulated or you get broken up. NN was the regulation that the monopolies got. People who are against NN say that the government shouldn't be interfering in internet communications. Fine, but in the absence of ISP competition, the only other option is breaking the big ISPs up, which doesn't really help anyone. The government can't really sponsor competing businesses to come in to monopoly markets either, so that puts them in a difficult position. NN was the lightest touch the government could have on the industry while still performing their responsibilities, but the industry rejected it, so now we have a mess instead.
 
How? My ISP wouldn't be prioritizing Netflix's traffic across my network over any other traffic. All the Open Connect CDN servers do it make it unnecessary for the traffic to leave my ISP's network. This is effectively how all CDNs work. CDNs do not violate Net Neutrality. Allowing peering points to become oversubscribed and expressly using that to extort money from content providers did violate NN.

Here's the thing with all the ISPs who throttled Netflix: when they signed up to be an ISP, they were agreeing to be a dumb pipe in a regulated industry (telecommunications). The fact that they later decided they didn't want to be a dumb pipe any more, for whatever reason, is immaterial. If they didn't want to provide enough bandwidth to keep the packets flowing during peak times, then they should've suffered the consequences by losing customers.

Unfortunately, in most of the US, broadband ISPs are effectively monopolies. If you are a monopoly in the US, you either get regulated or you get broken up. NN was the regulation that the monopolies got. People who are against NN say that the government shouldn't be interfering in internet communications. Fine, but in the absence of ISP competition, the only other option is breaking the big ISPs up, which doesn't really help anyone. The government can't really sponsor competing businesses to come in to monopoly markets either, so that puts them in a difficult position. NN was the lightest touch the government could have on the industry while still performing their responsibilities, but the industry rejected it, so now we have a mess instead.
Actually they would be prioritizing..it would give customers faster service than the otherguys...some large telecommunication company wanted to install cache servers for Netflix...of course at Netflix expense. Because the servers would be one per central office..they could offer higher bit rates while cutting back on backbone traffic...Netflix could offer 4k much easier than youtube..example only..not reality. Under net neutrality all competitors would have had to been offered the same service creating a financial hardship for the telecommunications company. .that is not an issue now

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
Actually they would be prioritizing..it would give customers faster service than the otherguys...some large telecommunication company wanted to install cache servers for Netflix...of course at Netflix expense. Because the servers would be one per central office..they could offer higher bit rates while cutting back on backbone traffic...Netflix could offer 4k much easier than youtube..example only..not reality. Under net neutrality all competitors would have had to been offered the same service creating a financial hardship for the telecommunications company. .that is not an issue now

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
A cache server stores a local copy of movie or show

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
Actually they would be prioritizing..it would give customers faster service than the otherguys...some large telecommunication company wanted to install cache servers for Netflix...of course at Netflix expense. Because the servers would be one per central office..they could offer higher bit rates while cutting back on backbone traffic...Netflix could offer 4k much easier than youtube..example only..not reality. Under net neutrality all competitors would have had to been offered the same service creating a financial hardship for the telecommunications company. .that is not an issue now

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
Nope not prioritizing the traffic, as long as the ISP allows any content provider to install a caching server inside the network AT THE CONTENT PROVIDERS EXPENSE, the ISP is treating all content providers equally, the choice is made by the content provider.

By your logic since CDNs operate in much the same way CDNs violate NN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ncted

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)