News Netflix accounts for 29.7% of US internet traffic

US-based video streaming service sees massive growth.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2011/05/19/netflix-third-of-us-internet-traffic/1

 

I can't help but think this is down to something simple, like Netflix defaulting to the highest resultion rather the lowest (no idea if this is true). If a service is using 29% of peak bandwidth then I can't help but think it's a technical problem rather than a positive thing.

Imagine if someone tried to market a piece of software with features such as "Now with an average download requirement of 40Gb per month!". I would have thought measuring downstream traffic is a pretty bad metric to judge popularity.

Who here would be impressed if a study found Steam accounted for 29% of CPU usage? No-one. We'd start a riot in the forums!

 

ISPs make loads of profit, claim no money to upgrade lines. Britain slips further down internet tables. Other countries offer 1GB lines for similar to 50MB lines here. No miscommunication.

 

That's impressive. Goes to show legitimate business models do work and movies aren't going to die from piracy (not that we didn't know that already). Too bad services like Netflix aren't and will probably never be available in NZ, not that we have the bandwidth for it anyway.

 

It should be up to the owners of the pipelines to upgrade them. After all, its like me offering a taxi service and expecting to road service or the clubs where I pick people up from to pay for the upgrade. Its simple, they'll move to someone who can provide the service. Thats the problem with big buisness atm, its all about keeping the investors happy rather than creating a profitable business. same with Tesco, they make millions in profit a year yet when food prices go up its their customers that take the hit, yet their profits still continue to rise. Eventually when prices get high enough everyone will go else where. Asda is cheaper every time, heck my local butcher is cheaper and better quality. A few years ago the butcher looked like premium products now theyre outstanding value. The government has stepped in cause it can't afford the ISP's to hold back development any more. Tax payer money going to increase ISP profits.

If the government has to step it, wouldn't mobile broadband be cheaper and quicker way to hit it's coverage goals? Products like the Atrix certainly make computing mobile and always available. Last time I checked, wi-fi hotspots where either locked, slower than 3G, open for a nice fee or lacked any decent range. Cloud computing is a non start with tethering being cracked down on or current laws regarding wi-fi.

 

It's a free market - if users don't like their ISP's service they will move. (unless they're in Hull LOL)

 

UK broadband isn't all bad look at Net Index...
http://netindex.com/value/

 

just read that devilxc, who else thought Chesapeake, Virginia actually said cheapskate! lol

 

I've used video streaming services here in Germany, and am very unimpressed:

• Maxdome - simply doesn't run right, caches for ages and then still doesn't playback smooth
• Lovefilm - Smooth playback, decent audio, but a resolution that sucks. Pixelated like compressing 10 movies onto one VCD philipino-style.
• Youtube - starts to stutter at 360 resolution, 720 is unplayable
• Kino.to - works...sometimes. But is illegal

And all that from a 6000 kBit network

A movie in a decent resolution, say a compressed DVD is under one GB and has to be streamed in about 1-1 1/2 hours...shouldn't be that impossibe.

 

Value does not always equate to quality.

It could just mean people in the uk pay little for a crap speed.

 

Haha! In the UK we don't pay little for anything!

 

To my knowledge, Netflix does try to run at the highest resolution that your network will support. It's for streaming movies (and TV shows), a certain level of quality is expected. For someone like myself who watches an average of at least an hour of content each day on Netflix it's easy to see how 80GB a month comes about. A couple of funny videos on Youtube at 240p pales in comparison.

 

That's just the thing. Where I live, a rural part of the state (like most people in the US) we only have 2 choices for high speed internet service. Verizon and some local satellite provider. Verizon is $45 a month for a 1.5mb line. The satellite company wanted $60 for a 1mb line. The only other internet providers are dial-up services. So for me at least it isn't a free market

 

Im supposedly on a 16mb with sky but i have trouble watching a 480 p song on youtube without it buffering. any higher resolution and its a joke.. I use this site to monitor my download speeds.http://www.thinkbroadband.com/tools.html The telephone exchange is due to be upgrade to tbbh next month. Will this make a difference to the quality? PLEASE I hope so!!!!

 

Thing is its not real competition as with so many services.

 

A guy from BT Broadband, called me up to try and sell me a package last year. I told him I'm happy with O2's 16Mbit service. The guy actually said but our tests show you can only pull 9Mbit download. So my response was naturally - uhhmm, OK... so where's my chuffing fibre then?!!
ADSL it's practically Victorian... (I can spit to reach my local BT exchange... well practically )

 

Greetings!