I concur. This is silly off-topic. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here, according to NANOG guidelines.
-mel > On Nov 13, 2019, at 4:57 AM, Bryan Holloway <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 11/13/19 1:06 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: >> * [email protected] (Mike Bolitho) [Wed 13 Nov 2019, 12:05 CET]: >>> This has gone well beyond out of scope of the NANOG list. Discussing who >>> watches what kind of content has nothing to do with networking. Can you >>> guys take the conversation elsewhere? >> On the contrary. This discussion informs eyeball networks' capacity >> planning requirements for the upcoming years. >> It'd be nice to go from anecdata to data, though. >> -- Niels. > > > Indeed ... as an eyeball network, this is all very relevant. > > Another aspect that hasn't been mentioned in this thread (I think), is that > besides there being a potential saturation of streaming services, there's > also the backroom dealings between content and content-providers. > > Here's some data: Netflix just lost "Friends", one of its most popular > offerings (and probably more than a blip on my bandwidth graphs) to HBO Max. > This is but one example, but, as a whole, stuff like this is very important > for capacity-planning. > > Not saying it's gonna happen, but if Disney "lost" the Star Wars franchise > to, say, Amazon, you better believe there are likely to be traffic shifts. > (Yes, I know they own it.)
