Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday April 17 2015, @02:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the as-soon-as-my-bandwidth-increases dept.

Netflix shares rose 13% in after-hours trading after the company announced it had added 5 million subscribers in the first quarter of 2015:

That brings the total global subscribers to the service to 62.3 million.

Netflix also said revenue increased by 23% from the same period a year earlier to $1.57bn (£1.06bn).
...
Shares in Netflix have risen by nearly 40% since the start of this year.

However, the company has faced increasing threats as companies such as Hulu and HBO have sought to commission their own, original on demand content to compete with Netflix [shows] like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black.

The last couple of years have seen other companies like Hulu, HBO, and now CBS following suit. If ESPN or other sports players do the same the cable industry could end with a bang, not a whimper.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by kadal on Friday April 17 2015, @02:39AM

    by kadal (4731) on Friday April 17 2015, @02:39AM (#171856)

    Reasonably priced, ad-free, good content that I can watch (almost) anywhere. Netflix has some not-so-famous gems hanging around: Foyle's War, BBC House of Cards, Poirot etc. It's the only reason I keep Chrome around.

    Now, if only the movie studios would license out more of their top-end movies for longer durations...

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 17 2015, @02:49AM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday April 17 2015, @02:49AM (#171857) Journal

      Do we really have the bandwidth in this country to stream everything as a separate stream to every tv tablet and mobile device?
      Nobody really uses multi-cast, so ever person watching becomes a separate tcp/udp stream.

      Maybe we do, but without on-plant caching, (like netfliks does) It seems unlikely.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @03:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @03:09AM (#171862)

        If we don't, then we should upgrade our networks. The fact that our current infrastructure is not sufficient for future means that we should improve, not stop the progress we're making.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 17 2015, @05:27AM

          by frojack (1554) on Friday April 17 2015, @05:27AM (#171896) Journal

          Just remember there is a great deal of unhappiness while you scream at your screen watching some whirling buffering symbol every 50 seconds because the national championships you wanted to watch suddenly appealed to a much larger audience, namely EVERYONE across the country. You call and bitch, but your ISP says the origination network can't keep up.

          So even though you are paying 250 a month for the fastest download you can afford, there STILL exist no possible upload bandwidth at the origination sufficient to handle a separate stream for every interested party in the entire nation.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 17 2015, @07:25AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:25AM (#171927) Journal

            Just remember there is a great deal of unhappiness while you scream at your screen watching some whirling buffering symbol every 50 seconds because the national championships you wanted to watch suddenly appealed to a much larger audience

            Is there really, or do people accept it as "that's just the way it is" when it happens? I remember as a kid watching TV with the bunny ears and the signal would fritz out all the time owing to weather or something, and while it was annoying everyone accepted it as the cost of doing business. My kids accept the "buffering..." symbol without missing a beat because it's all they've ever known. Of course I have known many stages of media distribution and it doesn't bother me either because A) it's that, or suffer through 25 minutes of blaring commercials every hour and B) I don't live or die for shows the way I did when I was 5--I can wait or drop it in the middle and I don't care.

            Really, does simultaneity really matter when watching a game, unless you're betting on it in Vegas? If buffering means you finish watching the game 5 minutes later than another guy in Seattle, does it really matter all that much? Seems to me it could actually heighten the drama if you look at it right.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @10:04AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @10:04AM (#171961)

              My kids accept the "buffering..." symbol without missing a beat because it's all they've ever known.

              You're kids are compliant, obedient, little consumers.
              You've done well, citizen, and earned your right to relocate to a better city. You are scheduled to relocate this coming Saturday. Make sure all your belongings are packed and ready to go. You will be relocated that day.

            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 17 2015, @07:07PM

              by frojack (1554) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:07PM (#172150) Journal

              Really, does simultaneity really matter when watching a game,

              Well said, but totally misses the point.

              Its precisely that simultaneity is not important, and simultaneity is not used in TV streamed over the internet which exacerbates the problem that cord cutting on a massive scale will engender.

              Because you don't mind being a few minutes behind, as long as you get to watch all of the action, you will require a separate stream.

              Because of this, every event, show, movie, etc, will be buffered to disk, and all those streams will be served from beginning to end individually for each viewer. It doesn't matter if it is a live event or a canned program. But on live events, with a large audience, there may be no possible upload capacity that could handle the load.

              Do the math. Bandwidth per minute per device. Your cable connection may handle the load if you pay enough. But the source can't possibly support that many streams. Every Apple announcement/event breaks the internet. It wasn't designed around infinite upload capability.

              That you are prepared to put up with the frustration is hardly germane. We all know the ball game is physically over before our TV displays the final second. Simultaneity is not the issue.
               

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @06:26PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @06:26PM (#172512)

                I think a big factor is control and copyright law.

                There can be very many streams if you had many sources - e.g. the viewers and their ISPs and CDNs[1] could also stream copies to others. P2P torrenting scales well especially if ISPs can also legally participate.

                [1] if you had the $$$$$$$ and were willing to pay for it you could buy enough capacity to stream millions of streams: https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/ [amazon.com]
                http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/media-services/?rnd=1 [microsoft.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @01:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @01:37PM (#172011)

            Then maybe, perhaps, they should have taken the subsidies they've been receiving to upgrade said capacity and actually use it to upgrade said capacity, instead of using it as profit. They were paid, they did not deliver, if this were a restaurant we'd get our money back.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday April 17 2015, @07:13PM

              by frojack (1554) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:13PM (#172154) Journal

              Then maybe, perhaps, they should have taken the subsidies they've been receiving to upgrade said capacity and actually use it to upgrade said capacity, instead of using it as profit. They were paid, they did not deliver, if this were a restaurant we'd get our money back.

              You just don't get it do you?
              No amount of upgrade can allow everyone who wants to watch the superbowl do so at the same time when each viewer needs a separate feed. The best system for that is ... ... wait for it... TV.

              You are trying to solve a physical problem with political pronouncements and pontification.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @11:04PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @11:04PM (#172220)

                No amount of upgrade can allow everyone who wants to watch the superbowl do so at the same time when each viewer needs a separate feed. The best system for that is ... ... wait for it... TV.

                You mean like broadcasting the radio waves out into the air such that anyone who who wants to watch it that is within the broadcast range just needs a receiver? The cable system is still just sending data, tv, voice, or other, and there's only congestion when its way oversold. All they have to do is not oversell the damn thing and upgrade as needed to handle new customers.

                • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 17 2015, @11:38PM

                  by frojack (1554) on Friday April 17 2015, @11:38PM (#172224) Journal

                  You mean like broadcasting the radio waves out into the air such that anyone who who wants to watch it that is within the broadcast range just needs a receiver? The cable system is still just sending data, tv, voice, or other, and there's only congestion when its way oversold. All they have to do is not oversell the damn thing and upgrade as needed to handle new customers.

                  One tv feed over the air or over the cable serves ALL viewers. One feed.
                  Over sold isn't the issue here. Stop harping on that.

                  100 million feeds from the source at the same time to accommodate every device with a separate super-bowl stream isn't possible. Even if you built a stadium right on top of the intersection of all internet backbone cables, you still couldn't do it.

                  One TV feed can be sent everywhere, to 5 billion tv sets with no congestion issues. You cant send 5 billion separate tcp/ip streams. Please go study the difference between a single common stream to multiple point vs multiple unique streams to multiple points. Go read up on multi-cast, and why even IT wouldn't work.

                  But please stop harping on oversold bandwidth. The problem isn't at your house. Its a the origination.

                  --
                  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                  • (Score: 1) by kryptonianjorel on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:22AM

                    by kryptonianjorel (4640) on Saturday April 18 2015, @04:22AM (#172297)

                    Never heard of multicast? Live events would be very easy to handle.

                    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:01AM

                      by frojack (1554) on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:01AM (#172305) Journal

                      I mentioned multicast. Read the thread.

                      Have you noticed any use of multicast? Why not?

                      --
                      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 1) by TestablePredictions on Friday April 17 2015, @09:49PM

            by TestablePredictions (3249) on Friday April 17 2015, @09:49PM (#172202)

            The upload bandwidth problem was solved ~15 years ago with P2P data transfer technology. The copyright neurotics won't allow it though, because somebody might *gasp* try to save the video stream longer term. Broadcast (like OTA television) would be fine too. But nobody make DVR'ing the stream harder than it needs to be mmmkay?

            Things suck because moneyed interests interfere, not because of true technological limitations.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @10:59PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @10:59PM (#172217)

            Just remember there is a great deal of unhappiness while you scream at your screen watching some whirling buffering symbol every 50 seconds because the national championships you wanted to watch suddenly appealed to a much larger audience, namely EVERYONE across the country. You call and bitch, but your ISP says the origination network can't keep up.

            That's because the ISPs way oversell [stopthecap.com] the bandwidth capability, because "not everyone will be on at the same time" or whatever bullshit excuse they use. They also use the bullshit line of "up to x mbit" knowing that you will never see that theoretical top speed.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Friday April 17 2015, @10:30AM

          by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 17 2015, @10:30AM (#171967) Journal

          We should distribute the content using efficient means instead. Multicast should be used for starters. Then one could use satellite and air networks for live events. And mass download of shows the rest of the time.

          Generic cache server hubs should be installed to alleviate some of the load.

          It seems people in general don't get that a nationwide event with individual TCP or UDP streams isn't a really good idea from a technical standpoint.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday April 17 2015, @02:38PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday April 17 2015, @02:38PM (#172057) Homepage
          Mere ability to request, and presumably consume, content is not progress.

          Then again, burgers so big that they're practically uneatable and which you get for free if you complete them were also considerd progress in the same part of the world.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1) by SubiculumHammer on Friday April 17 2015, @03:13AM

        by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Friday April 17 2015, @03:13AM (#171864)

        I think the market will push for upgrades, so this is good.

      • (Score: 1) by anubi on Friday April 17 2015, @03:33AM

        by anubi (2828) on Friday April 17 2015, @03:33AM (#171873) Journal

        Local caching would level the demand. All it would take is relaxation of current legislation forbidding having local storage.

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:01AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @05:01AM (#171888)

          Or, you know, the "broadband" providers could just provide the broadband they were supposed to decades ago in exchange for taking government money and tax breaks.

          • (Score: 1) by anubi on Friday April 17 2015, @07:34AM

            by anubi (2828) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:34AM (#171929) Journal

            In exchange for "letting them off the hook", I expect to be "let off the hook" too, as far as trying to do work-arounds for their failure to deliver.

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by SacredSalt on Friday April 17 2015, @07:45AM

            by SacredSalt (2772) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:45AM (#171931)

            Before SBC got bought by AT&T, SBC had a ballot measure in Missouri to let them keep a huge wad of cash they had over billed to customers in exchange for wiring fiber to the home by a set date that has long since passed. When AT&T acquired SBC, they took on its liabilities. Considering it was a state voting measure, we OUGHT to be able to hold them to it.

            I can't get fiber -- even though a main trunk line is less than 2200 ft from my house, and the secondary trunk line is 2300 ft and just as large. These are larger than two telephone poles fiber connections. They have the space (an easement) to install anything that is needed to provide it, but they refuse to wire my neighborhood up! The best we can do here is "phony" uverse over copper.

            My local cable monopoly is little better, but they do pretend to offer slightly higher speeds. I don't know anyone with it who actually gets those speeds beyond the initial burst speed. A whole lot of changes need to happen, and in light of the lack of competition here they are going to happen very slowly.

            • (Score: 1) by anubi on Friday April 17 2015, @07:58AM

              by anubi (2828) on Friday April 17 2015, @07:58AM (#171933) Journal

              We were supposed to be able to get "dry-loop" internet as part of our Yahoo/SBC/AT&T deal...

              Just try to get it....

              Its one thing to "grant a concession" to Congress in return for their blessing.

              Its another thing completely different for any of us little guys to ask them to make good on it.

              --
              "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 17 2015, @02:35PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday April 17 2015, @02:35PM (#172055) Journal

              Well this seems the next great frontier for the FOSS movement--free high-speed connectivity for everyone. Latency is the killer. If simultaneity is not required, cheap storage and automatic caching could solve a lot of that.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @03:27AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @03:27AM (#171869) Journal

      Now, if only the movie studios would license out more of their top-end movies for longer durations...

      Good luck [wikipedia.org] - Universal Studios is owned by Comcast, Time Warner controls heaps including HBO and Warner Bros, Viacom controls both Paramount and CBSNetworks, MGM has control from Sony and Comcast, 20-21 Century Fox is under ...you guessed... Murdoch, Columbia owned by Sony.
      (Sony - mmmm... not a cable company as such? But... Playstation as an entertainment platform, movies included?)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by kadal on Friday April 17 2015, @03:28AM

        by kadal (4731) on Friday April 17 2015, @03:28AM (#171872)

        Yeah, this is what sucks. Eventually, you'll need to subscribe to 10 different services to get access to most flicks. Irritating...

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:11PM (#171980)

        > Time Warner controls heaps including HBO and Warner Bros,

        Time Warner Cable hasn't been associated with Time Warner since 2009. [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 17 2015, @12:59PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 17 2015, @12:59PM (#172000) Journal

          Time Warner Cable hasn't been associated with Time Warner since 2009.

          Et alors? They sold one subsidiary.
          Time Warner [wikipedia.org]:

          It is currently the world's third largest television networks and filmed TV & entertainment company in terms of revenue

          HBO [wikipedia.org] (owned by Time Warner)

          HBO (Home Box Office) is an American premium cable and satellite television network

          Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. [wikipedia.org]

          Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (often abbreviated Turner Broadcasting, TBS, Inc. or simply Turner) is an American media conglomerate and subsidiary of Time Warner, managing the collection of cable networks and properties initiated or acquired by Robert Edward "Ted" Turner

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:40PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @03:40PM (#172445)

            > Et alors? They sold one subsidiary.

            The one subsidiary that matters - the one with a cable plant.
            Thus they are no longer aligned with the interests of cable companies and are free to sell streaming video without the worry of hurting themselves.
            You yourself realized that was the key issue when you said "oh sony isn't a cable company but their playstation network is kinda sort like one so maybe that's close enough to make my point sort of relevant."

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday April 19 2015, @12:31PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 19 2015, @12:31PM (#172807) Journal

              The one subsidiary that matters - the one with a cable plant.

              Wrong. Read the thread again and you'll see the context of my answer being:
              "I hope movie studios would license out more of their top-end movies for longer durations...".

              As long as the movies studios are part of a conglomerate which are able to distribute the movie themselves (cable or other means, Internet included), they won't license the movies to "Netflix et al" for longer times.
              E.g. Sony: why should they licence the movies to Netflix for 50 years when they try to push/grow their own "Sony Entertainment network"?

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @03:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @03:09AM (#171861)

    You've got to put on your Netflix shoes
    Put on your Netflix shoes
    Everyone will start to cheer
    When you put on your Netflix shoes

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @03:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @03:24AM (#171867)

      Methinks someone didn't read the summary before modding....

      ...to compete with Netflix shoes like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black....

  • (Score: 2) by arslan on Friday April 17 2015, @03:27AM

    by arslan (3462) on Friday April 17 2015, @03:27AM (#171868)

    You can participate and earn $10,000 [amazon.com] too!

    • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday April 17 2015, @03:04PM

      by Gravis (4596) on Friday April 17 2015, @03:04PM (#172065)

      and in return amazon gets that back 100 fold. yeah, seems fair. -_-

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @12:46PM (#171993)
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @01:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17 2015, @01:23PM (#172008)

      Normal people don't use GNU/Linux or "only free software" to watch a streaming video service. They don't care about encrypted media extensions.

      Linux users can watch Netflix on Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS using Google Chrome.

      That page has no relevance or impact for over 99% of Earth.