|
|
|
|
|
|
by jmileham
4433 days ago
|
|
|
I'll take the non-false dichotomy, please. Having enough capacity to meet the streaming demand of your current customers during peak times is a solvable problem that doesn't require a full gigabit for everybody, all the time. The pricing model required to support this while still looking attractive to customers I'll leave to Comcast's well-funded marketing department. In order to make that happen, of course, we'd have to live in a fanciful world where shifting last-mile delivery cost to content providers wasn't an option so the painful process of exposing this cost to customers couldn't be hidden in a rat's nest of perverse incentives that benefit the most entrenched corporations. (Ironically, and despite its protestations, Netflix's ability to pay this rent is a barrier to entry for its own future competitors.) |
|
|
With adaptive streaming technology, there is not such thing as "today streaming demand"
If whenever you raise the pipe size, it is automatically filled by an higher resolution/quality/bitrate stream, it is a never ending game.
What I mean is that, whatever the state/quality of ISP networks is or could have been, we are doomed to face that "Netflix problem". If networks were better, then Netflix would already offer 4k or dual/triple HD streams and so there would be saturation anyway.
> (Ironically, and despite its protestations, Netflix's ability to pay this rent is a barrier to entry for its own future competitors.)
Actually, moving all Netflix traffic to private pipes will free the shared ones, so a new freeloader can use them and cut Netflix prices ;)