Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Jared Mauch]

Speaking as a consumer I tend to purchase content and things like OTA 
broadcasts are available overnight without commercials. Thus is worth it for 
me. Cut the 30 minute show to 18-22 and can download without geo locks wherever 
I am. 

Sent from my iFridge

> On Dec 1, 2019, at 4:31 PM, Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
> 
> Each service *is a cable company*, requiring it's own set-top box (or a 
> plug-in that works on your current box/tv.
> 
> Note also that you can't DVR any of this stuff, and it *does* go away.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Jay R. Ashworth]

Each service *is a cable company*, requiring it's own set-top box (or a 
plug-in that works on your current box/tv.

Note also that you can't DVR any of this stuff, and it *does* go away.

Cheers,
-- jra

- Original Message -
> From: "Ross Tajvar" 
> To: "Owen DeLong" 
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 2:33:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Disney+ Streaming

> Well, not exactly. Each service is still a bunch of shows and movies
> bundled together. If you only want to watch one show, you can't just buy
> that, you have to buy the whole service.
> 
> Of course, there are services where you can buy individual movies and
> episodes (Google Play comes to mind). But Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, etc.
> don't operate that way.
> 
> -Ross
> 
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 1:53 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
>> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that consumers
>> have been
>> begging for unbundling for years.
>>
>> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of that
>> request.
>>
>> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 26, 2019, at 01:54 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/Nov/19 22:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
>> >> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
>> >> fragmentation continues.
>> >>
>> >> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
>> >> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
>> >> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
>> >> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
>> >> piracy.
>> >>
>> >> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
>> >> greed.  Again.
>> >
>> > This!
>> >
>> > At the beginning of this year, I dumped Prime Video because while I
>> > initially got it for "The Grand Tour", almost all the other content was
>> > not available in Africa. Didn't see the point of shelling out over
>> > US$100/year for just one show, especially since we already have Netflix
>> > + a local linear pay TV service.
>> >
>> > I bought the wife a new iPhone 11 Pro earlier this month. This got us
>> > 1-year's worth of free AppleTV+. Not a lot of content so far, but I hear
>> > the same about Disney+. Granted 2 of the 3 shows on TV+ are not bad. But
>> > it's free, so what the heck.
>> >
>> > I'm not keen on paying for more than one streaming service, if I'm
>> > honest. There already isn't enough time in the world for regular life,
>> > never mind watching one streaming service... now we have to deal with
>> > more, each with their own price? Not sure how well the streaming
>> > providers expect regular folk to take all of this fragmentation.
>> >
>> > As my daughter would say, "They can miss me with it :-)".
>> >
>> > Mark.
>> >
>>

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Nov/19 19:54, Jared Mauch wrote:


> No, their new service is Peacock and will launch in 2020. [1]
>
> I’m sure they’ll have the same set of CDNs that service them as the other 
> streaming services and that most of them will eventually go the Netflix (OCA) 
> style route for their VOD content over time as well.
>
> - Jared
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock_(streaming_service)

This model is quite similar to what Multichoice (Africa's main pay TV
service provider) have done with their streaming service, ShowMax.
Basically, if you are an existing customer of their linear service, then
you get ShowMax for free, ad free.

I see that Peacock is going the same route for their existing
NBCUniversal, Comcast and Sky linear customers, which makes plenty of
sense to me.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Jared Mauch]

> On Nov 29, 2019, at 12:44 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> Isn’t NBCUniversal’s streaming service called Xfinity? Isn’t it one of the 
> older ones?

No, their new service is Peacock and will launch in 2020. [1]

I’m sure they’ll have the same set of CDNs that service them as the other 
streaming services and that most of them will eventually go the Netflix (OCA) 
style route for their VOD content over time as well.

- Jared

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock_(streaming_service)

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Owen DeLong]

Isn’t NBCUniversal’s streaming service called Xfinity? Isn’t it one of the 
older ones?

Owen


> On Nov 28, 2019, at 14:23 , Robert Haylock  wrote:
> 
> I agree with Brian, this is not unbundling, it's just removing one layer of 
> distribution; you no longer need the Cable company to play aggregator to the 
> content distributors, you now buy from them direct (especially true in the 
> case of HBO and Disney, except ESPN is not yet included). The next logical 
> large player to enter the global** direct-to-streamer market would be 
> NBCUniversal, so I'm sure we will soon be preparing for that one too :)
> 
> Rob
> 
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 06:47, Brian J. Murrell  > wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 10:50 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that
> > consumers have been
> > begging for unbundling for years.
> 
> This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for. 
> Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much
> more like the bundling that they have been railing against.
> 
> The "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for is minimally, the
> ability to buy a single channel for a fair price and not have to take
> 14 other channels of *garbage* with it at 15x the cost one of those
> channels.  I say minimally because I suspect that the really savvy
> consumers would actually rather even pay (again, at a fair price) per
> show or episode.
> 
> But that's not what's happening with this fragmentation.  This
> fragmentation is like the cable company splitting up that "once price
> for all" bundle and putting the pieces into other bundles, each at the
> same cost as that original "all in one" bundle that the consumers were
> originally happy with and saw as fair value.  Of course now to continue
> to getting those pieces of the original bundle that they were happy
> with, consumers are having to buy multiples of these new bundles and
> their costs are driving up sharply accordingly.
> 
> > This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of
> > that request.
> 
> I would submit that that is completely untrue.  Do you really think
> Disney pulled out of Netflix and started their own service because
> consumers wanted Disney to unbundle from Netflix?  I would suggest that
> that is completely not why.  Rather, Disney was not happy to have just
> a piece of the Netflix pie, and decided, as greedy as they are, that
> they would sell their own pies and take the fully monthly subscription
> price.
> 
> > It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.
> 
> Again.  No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  Quite the opposite in fact.
> 
> The problem with suggesting that this is unbundling is that the cost of
> Netflix didn't reduce when Disney pulled out and Disney (I would bet, I
> haven't actually looked at it's cost) isn't charging the faction of the
> Netflix cost that would be commensurate with their percentage of the
> entire Netflix library.
> 
> So there has been no "unbundling" of any sort.  Rather it's been an
> exercise of actually creating a new bundling.  And I still predict that
> once the reality of this sets in with consumers, they are going to
> reject it and head back to that low (zero) cost means of obtaining
> their media that they used when they were unhappy with the previous
> generation of bundling.
> 
> b.
> 

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Owen DeLong]

This started under the Cable regime, People were complaining about having to 
buy channel bundles instead of simply choosing the channels they wanted to 
subscribe to.

Owen


> On Nov 28, 2019, at 11:33 , Ross Tajvar  wrote:
> 
> Well, not exactly. Each service is still a bunch of shows and movies bundled 
> together. If you only want to watch one show, you can't just buy that, you 
> have to buy the whole service.
> 
> Of course, there are services where you can buy individual movies and 
> episodes (Google Play comes to mind). But Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, etc. don't 
> operate that way.
> 
> -Ross  
> 
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 1:53 PM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that consumers have 
> been
> begging for unbundling for years.
> 
> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of that 
> request.
> 
> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> > On Nov 26, 2019, at 01:54 , Mark Tinka  > > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 12/Nov/19 22:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
> >> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
> >> fragmentation continues.
> >> 
> >> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
> >> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
> >> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
> >> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
> >> piracy.
> >> 
> >> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
> >> greed.  Again.
> > 
> > This!
> > 
> > At the beginning of this year, I dumped Prime Video because while I
> > initially got it for "The Grand Tour", almost all the other content was
> > not available in Africa. Didn't see the point of shelling out over
> > US$100/year for just one show, especially since we already have Netflix
> > + a local linear pay TV service.
> > 
> > I bought the wife a new iPhone 11 Pro earlier this month. This got us
> > 1-year's worth of free AppleTV+. Not a lot of content so far, but I hear
> > the same about Disney+. Granted 2 of the 3 shows on TV+ are not bad. But
> > it's free, so what the heck.
> > 
> > I'm not keen on paying for more than one streaming service, if I'm
> > honest. There already isn't enough time in the world for regular life,
> > never mind watching one streaming service... now we have to deal with
> > more, each with their own price? Not sure how well the streaming
> > providers expect regular folk to take all of this fragmentation.
> > 
> > As my daughter would say, "They can miss me with it :-)".
> > 
> > Mark.
> > 
> 

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Nov/19 14:42, Brandon Butterworth wrote:

>
> Bringing this back on charter, how many different CDN appliances
> will we need to host for all these VoD providers? I'm just as
> guilty there having made our own CDN for the BBC (as well as using
> commercial ones).

This is one of the practical issues we are having to consider with this
VoD provider fragmentation.

>From experience, CDN's prefer on-net caches to peering/public caches,
and just about all of them are building away from the Akamai's of the world.

We, for example, host a number of CDN clusters at our CLS's along the
Eastern and Southern African coastline. As some of you may remember the
recent discussions on CLS's vs. data centres for co-lo, it presents a
real problem when trying to meet scale, and you want as much content
on-continent for your eyeballs as you can get.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Nov/19 15:13, Keith Medcalf wrote:

> There are quite a lot of places where you can buy DRM free lossless
> audio files ranging in quality from CD (44.1 kHz/16-bit/2 channel) all
> the way up to 192 kHz/32-bit/5.1 channel and beyond.  These are
> basically CDs (or better) without the physical CD media and packaging.
> There are also streaming services that stream in "CD" quality (lossless
> 44.1kHz/16-bit) or better, if you prefer that model (and can live with
> the fleeting availability of the content).  There are even a few record
> companies (as long as you do not want an American one) that will sell
> you their entire collection of digital studio masters in lossless DRM
> free format.

This is true.

On Beatport and Traxsource, you can buy WAV files, which are basically
lossless formats encoded at a 1.411Mbps bit-rate.

They are just marginally more expensive than MP3's (which are of
high-quality also, encoded at 320Kbps).

I normally play WAV files at large sound stages (15,000+ people),
otherwise, 320Kbps MP3 or 256Kbps AAC is just fine.

>
> There is not, however, and equivalent for Video -- it is presently stuck
> at the "compressed all to ratshit" video and audio level -- unless you
> buy physical media and extract the data yourself.

Which is the reason I had a huge BD budget 2014 - 2016.

I don't subscribe to Netflix's UHD plan, as my 4K TV does all the
heavy-lifting of upscaling 1080p streams, but it's good enough that I
haven't had the urge to buy a BD in 3 years.

Mark.

RE: Disney+ Streaming

[Keith Medcalf]

On Friday, 29 November, 2019 05:43, Brandon Butterworth
 wrote:

>I'm not conviced music really learned either, once CDs are gone
>there will be little access to reasonable quality uncompressed
>downloads as everyone chases quite compressed streams.

There are quite a lot of places where you can buy DRM free lossless
audio files ranging in quality from CD (44.1 kHz/16-bit/2 channel) all
the way up to 192 kHz/32-bit/5.1 channel and beyond.  These are
basically CDs (or better) without the physical CD media and packaging.
There are also streaming services that stream in "CD" quality (lossless
44.1kHz/16-bit) or better, if you prefer that model (and can live with
the fleeting availability of the content).  There are even a few record
companies (as long as you do not want an American one) that will sell
you their entire collection of digital studio masters in lossless DRM
free format.

There is not, however, and equivalent for Video -- it is presently stuck
at the "compressed all to ratshit" video and audio level -- unless you
buy physical media and extract the data yourself.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven
says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Fri Nov 29, 2019 at 01:34:41PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> The trajectory for all of this is that, ultimately, if the VoD providers
> do not come together and federate or make a solid plan, we'll end up
> right back where we started - content piracy.

Music learned to not make stealing a better user experience than
paying. Sadly video weren't watching.

Making it impossible to buy in some locations or removing it from
services where people were paying, in the hope of selling it from
their own service instead, pushes people back to stealing.

I'm not conviced music really learned either, once CDs are gone
there will be little access to reasonable quality uncompressed
downloads as everyone chases quite compressed streams.

Bringing this back on charter, how many different CDN appliances
will we need to host for all these VoD providers? I'm just as
guilty there having made our own CDN for the BBC (as well as using
commercial ones).

brandon

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Nov/19 13:14, Brandon Butterworth wrote:

>
> And try busting or buying each other as they fight to be the only
> one.
>
> Aggregators get away with it as there is some value in not having
> to mess around buying each item individually but they get greedy
> and there is easy profit in selling bundles of exclusive stuff
> you won't use.
>
> If they'd stick to just being frictionliess marketplaces for buying
> any content you want they'd be providing a useful service (as IXP
> help in peering).

The trajectory for all of this is that, ultimately, if the VoD providers
do not come together and federate or make a solid plan, we'll end up
right back where we started - content piracy.

I will cop to being an avid Napster user way back in 1999. For several
years since, my main music sources have been legitimate - iTunes, Apple
Music, Beatport and Traxsource. All these are, as you say, aggregators;
and in the end, they will be the winners. I have zero desire to pirate
music - also, I'm a DJ :-).

I also have zero desire to pirate video content because Netflix + my
pay-TV service give me everything I want:

    - They are in Africa.
    - Performance is great.
    - Uptime is great.
    - Content is generally good.
    - Content is plenty.
    - Price is reasonable

I'm happily forgoing exclusive content on another VoD service, even if
it meets most of the above. That said, if they can integrate into a
single source, happily paying slightly more for the benefit.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Fri Nov 29, 2019 at 12:41:50PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> It's either naive or presumptuous of any VoD provider to think that they
> can each have 100% of the market

Yes, rent seekers are going to seek rent so they will try and be the
tier 1 content provider and all the other content has to pay them
to be seen. They hope to lock up internet as they did with cable

> More so, that sharing the market
> through fragmentation is a viable way to guarantee their going concern
> over the long term.

And try busting or buying each other as they fight to be the only
one.

Aggregators get away with it as there is some value in not having
to mess around buying each item individually but they get greedy
and there is easy profit in selling bundles of exclusive stuff
you won't use.

If they'd stick to just being frictionliess marketplaces for buying
any content you want they'd be providing a useful service (as IXP
help in peering).

brandon

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Nov/19 10:44, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Sure. Like we all have been begging for an "Internet service" without
> any peering...
>
> The consumers have been begging for unbundling of content and transport.
> This does not imply fragmentation of either. That's a content provider
> straw man.  It is only reasonable to assume that all content providers
> will see the benefit in mutual agreements for content exchange with all
> other content providers.  Just like it's reasonable to assume your ISP
> will let you access services hosted by some other ISP.
>
> Of course, if ISPs wanted to make money then they would have tried to
> monopolize the market by fragmentation.  Not..

Agreed.

It's either naive or presumptuous of any VoD provider to think that they
can each have 100% of the market. More so, that sharing the market
through fragmentation is a viable way to guarantee their going concern
over the long term.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Nov/19 01:08, Mike Bolitho wrote:
> Again, this has gone beyond off-topic for the NANOG list. Please take
> the discussion elsewhere.

I'm not entirely sure.

A good portion of our wholesale business is selling access into Africa
to content providers. We have developed a reasonably good nose for which
companies are keen to come to Africa, and which aren't. And for those
that aren't, we have a good idea of when we think they'll have had
enough pressure to be present.

So the numbers are running about when/whether Disney+ will come to
Africa, which provides plenty of information about how we roll out and
plan for network. One data set also caters for how much interest folk
will have in keeping both Netflix and Disney+.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 29/Nov/19 00:51, Michael Thomas wrote:

> The big problem is that I don't want to pay for a month of content to
> watch one or two shows. And I definitely don't want to pay a month's
> worth of content to three dozen providers of which i may only watch a
> few of their programs a couple of times a month. Now if you reduced
> that to, say, a day pass I might bite, especially if there was no more
> friction than the usual channel surfing.

In the midst of Netflix + my linear pay-TV service, we actually rent
movies, on-demand, from the linear pay-TV service, which cost over &
above what you pay them monthly already. Fair point, it's US$2 - US$4
per movie, but that's movies that are still reasonably new (3 - 4 months
off the cinema circuit) that would only make it to mainstream TV or VoD
12 - 18 months later. And we do that only twice a month, on average.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Nov/19 21:44, Brian J. Murrell wrote:

>
> This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for. 
> Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much
> more like the bundling that they have been railing against.

This.

Mark.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Nov/19 20:50, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that consumers have 
> been
> begging for unbundling for years.
>
> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of that 
> request.
>
> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.

Perhaps, but I'm not entirely sure consumers wanted to spend US$10/month
on 10+ streaming services either.

Perhaps, as consumers, we were fairly ill-thought in assuming studios
and streaming providers wouldn't treat content like it's minerals.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Bjørn Mork]

Sure. Like we all have been begging for an "Internet service" without
any peering...

The consumers have been begging for unbundling of content and transport.
This does not imply fragmentation of either. That's a content provider
straw man.  It is only reasonable to assume that all content providers
will see the benefit in mutual agreements for content exchange with all
other content providers.  Just like it's reasonable to assume your ISP
will let you access services hosted by some other ISP.

Of course, if ISPs wanted to make money then they would have tried to
monopolize the market by fragmentation.  Not..



Bjørn

Owen DeLong  writes:

> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that consumers have 
> been
> begging for unbundling for years.
>
> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of that 
> request.
>
> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Nov 26, 2019, at 01:54 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/Nov/19 22:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
>>> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
>>> fragmentation continues.
>>> 
>>> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
>>> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
>>> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
>>> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
>>> piracy.
>>> 
>>> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
>>> greed.  Again.
>> 
>> This!
>> 
>> At the beginning of this year, I dumped Prime Video because while I
>> initially got it for "The Grand Tour", almost all the other content was
>> not available in Africa. Didn't see the point of shelling out over
>> US$100/year for just one show, especially since we already have Netflix
>> + a local linear pay TV service.
>> 
>> I bought the wife a new iPhone 11 Pro earlier this month. This got us
>> 1-year's worth of free AppleTV+. Not a lot of content so far, but I hear
>> the same about Disney+. Granted 2 of the 3 shows on TV+ are not bad. But
>> it's free, so what the heck.
>> 
>> I'm not keen on paying for more than one streaming service, if I'm
>> honest. There already isn't enough time in the world for regular life,
>> never mind watching one streaming service... now we have to deal with
>> more, each with their own price? Not sure how well the streaming
>> providers expect regular folk to take all of this fragmentation.
>> 
>> As my daughter would say, "They can miss me with it :-)".
>> 
>> Mark.
>> 

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mike Bolitho]

Again, this has gone beyond off-topic for the NANOG list. Please take the
discussion elsewhere.

-Mike Bolitho

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 3:52 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

> Back in the old days, we had the ultimate in unbundling: you walked up,
> got a ticket, and watched the movie.
>
> In principle it wouldn't be that hard these days to do something similar
> with a tremendous reduction in friction. Basically pay-per-view on
> steroids.
>
> My sense is that it would be tremendous failure though: how would a
> consumer know how to value different content? Going to a movie is
> comparatively a big commitment with plenty of time to decide if you think
> it's worth it. Channel surfing, not so much. So maybe we are doomed to some
> sort of bundling.
>
> The big problem is that I don't want to pay for a month of content to
> watch one or two shows. And I definitely don't want to pay a month's worth
> of content to three dozen providers of which i may only watch a few of
> their programs a couple of times a month. Now if you reduced that to, say,
> a day pass I might bite, especially if there was no more friction than the
> usual channel surfing.
>
> Mike
> On 11/28/19 2:23 PM, Robert Haylock wrote:
>
> I agree with Brian, this is not unbundling, it's just removing one layer
> of distribution; you no longer need the Cable company to play aggregator to
> the content distributors, you now buy from them direct (especially true in
> the case of HBO and Disney, except ESPN is not yet included). The next
> logical large player to enter the global** direct-to-streamer market would
> be NBCUniversal, so I'm sure we will soon be preparing for that one too :)
>
> Rob
>
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 06:47, Brian J. Murrell 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 10:50 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> > While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that
>> > consumers have been
>> > begging for unbundling for years.
>>
>> This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for.
>> Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much
>> more like the bundling that they have been railing against.
>>
>> The "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for is minimally, the
>> ability to buy a single channel for a fair price and not have to take
>> 14 other channels of *garbage* with it at 15x the cost one of those
>> channels.  I say minimally because I suspect that the really savvy
>> consumers would actually rather even pay (again, at a fair price) per
>> show or episode.
>>
>> But that's not what's happening with this fragmentation.  This
>> fragmentation is like the cable company splitting up that "once price
>> for all" bundle and putting the pieces into other bundles, each at the
>> same cost as that original "all in one" bundle that the consumers were
>> originally happy with and saw as fair value.  Of course now to continue
>> to getting those pieces of the original bundle that they were happy
>> with, consumers are having to buy multiples of these new bundles and
>> their costs are driving up sharply accordingly.
>>
>> > This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of
>> > that request.
>>
>> I would submit that that is completely untrue.  Do you really think
>> Disney pulled out of Netflix and started their own service because
>> consumers wanted Disney to unbundle from Netflix?  I would suggest that
>> that is completely not why.  Rather, Disney was not happy to have just
>> a piece of the Netflix pie, and decided, as greedy as they are, that
>> they would sell their own pies and take the fully monthly subscription
>> price.
>>
>> > It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.
>>
>> Again.  No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  Quite the opposite in fact.
>>
>> The problem with suggesting that this is unbundling is that the cost of
>> Netflix didn't reduce when Disney pulled out and Disney (I would bet, I
>> haven't actually looked at it's cost) isn't charging the faction of the
>> Netflix cost that would be commensurate with their percentage of the
>> entire Netflix library.
>>
>> So there has been no "unbundling" of any sort.  Rather it's been an
>> exercise of actually creating a new bundling.  And I still predict that
>> once the reality of this sets in with consumers, they are going to
>> reject it and head back to that low (zero) cost means of obtaining
>> their media that they used when they were unhappy with the previous
>> generation of bundling.
>>
>> b.
>>
>>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Michael Thomas]

Back in the old days, we had the ultimate in unbundling: you walked up, 
got a ticket, and watched the movie.


In principle it wouldn't be that hard these days to do something similar 
with a tremendous reduction in friction. Basically pay-per-view on 
steroids.


My sense is that it would be tremendous failure though: how would a 
consumer know how to value different content? Going to a movie is 
comparatively a big commitment with plenty of time to decide if you 
think it's worth it. Channel surfing, not so much. So maybe we are 
doomed to some sort of bundling.


The big problem is that I don't want to pay for a month of content to 
watch one or two shows. And I definitely don't want to pay a month's 
worth of content to three dozen providers of which i may only watch a 
few of their programs a couple of times a month. Now if you reduced that 
to, say, a day pass I might bite, especially if there was no more 
friction than the usual channel surfing.


Mike

On 11/28/19 2:23 PM, Robert Haylock wrote:
I agree with Brian, this is not unbundling, it's just removing one 
layer of distribution; you no longer need the Cable company to play 
aggregator to the content distributors, you now buy from them direct 
(especially true in the case of HBO and Disney, except ESPN is not yet 
included). The next logical large player to enter the global** 
direct-to-streamer market would be NBCUniversal, so I'm sure we will 
soon be preparing for that one too :)


Rob

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 06:47, Brian J. Murrell > wrote:


On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 10:50 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that
> consumers have been
> begging for unbundling for years.

This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for.
Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much
more like the bundling that they have been railing against.

The "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for is
minimally, the
ability to buy a single channel for a fair price and not have to take
14 other channels of *garbage* with it at 15x the cost one of those
channels.  I say minimally because I suspect that the really savvy
consumers would actually rather even pay (again, at a fair price) per
show or episode.

But that's not what's happening with this fragmentation.  This
fragmentation is like the cable company splitting up that "once price
for all" bundle and putting the pieces into other bundles, each at the
same cost as that original "all in one" bundle that the consumers were
originally happy with and saw as fair value.  Of course now to
continue
to getting those pieces of the original bundle that they were happy
with, consumers are having to buy multiples of these new bundles and
their costs are driving up sharply accordingly.

> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of
> that request.

I would submit that that is completely untrue.  Do you really think
Disney pulled out of Netflix and started their own service because
consumers wanted Disney to unbundle from Netflix?  I would suggest
that
that is completely not why.  Rather, Disney was not happy to have just
a piece of the Netflix pie, and decided, as greedy as they are, that
they would sell their own pies and take the fully monthly subscription
price.

> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.

Again.  No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  Quite the opposite in fact.

The problem with suggesting that this is unbundling is that the
cost of
Netflix didn't reduce when Disney pulled out and Disney (I would
bet, I
haven't actually looked at it's cost) isn't charging the faction
of the
Netflix cost that would be commensurate with their percentage of the
entire Netflix library.

So there has been no "unbundling" of any sort.  Rather it's been an
exercise of actually creating a new bundling.  And I still predict
that
once the reality of this sets in with consumers, they are going to
reject it and head back to that low (zero) cost means of obtaining
their media that they used when they were unhappy with the previous
generation of bundling.

b.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Robert Haylock]

I agree with Brian, this is not unbundling, it's just removing one layer of
distribution; you no longer need the Cable company to play aggregator to
the content distributors, you now buy from them direct (especially true in
the case of HBO and Disney, except ESPN is not yet included). The next
logical large player to enter the global** direct-to-streamer market would
be NBCUniversal, so I'm sure we will soon be preparing for that one too :)

Rob

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 06:47, Brian J. Murrell 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 10:50 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that
> > consumers have been
> > begging for unbundling for years.
>
> This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for.
> Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much
> more like the bundling that they have been railing against.
>
> The "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for is minimally, the
> ability to buy a single channel for a fair price and not have to take
> 14 other channels of *garbage* with it at 15x the cost one of those
> channels.  I say minimally because I suspect that the really savvy
> consumers would actually rather even pay (again, at a fair price) per
> show or episode.
>
> But that's not what's happening with this fragmentation.  This
> fragmentation is like the cable company splitting up that "once price
> for all" bundle and putting the pieces into other bundles, each at the
> same cost as that original "all in one" bundle that the consumers were
> originally happy with and saw as fair value.  Of course now to continue
> to getting those pieces of the original bundle that they were happy
> with, consumers are having to buy multiples of these new bundles and
> their costs are driving up sharply accordingly.
>
> > This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of
> > that request.
>
> I would submit that that is completely untrue.  Do you really think
> Disney pulled out of Netflix and started their own service because
> consumers wanted Disney to unbundle from Netflix?  I would suggest that
> that is completely not why.  Rather, Disney was not happy to have just
> a piece of the Netflix pie, and decided, as greedy as they are, that
> they would sell their own pies and take the fully monthly subscription
> price.
>
> > It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.
>
> Again.  No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  Quite the opposite in fact.
>
> The problem with suggesting that this is unbundling is that the cost of
> Netflix didn't reduce when Disney pulled out and Disney (I would bet, I
> haven't actually looked at it's cost) isn't charging the faction of the
> Netflix cost that would be commensurate with their percentage of the
> entire Netflix library.
>
> So there has been no "unbundling" of any sort.  Rather it's been an
> exercise of actually creating a new bundling.  And I still predict that
> once the reality of this sets in with consumers, they are going to
> reject it and head back to that low (zero) cost means of obtaining
> their media that they used when they were unhappy with the previous
> generation of bundling.
>
> b.
>
>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 10:50 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that
> consumers have been
> begging for unbundling for years.

This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for. 
Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much
more like the bundling that they have been railing against.

The "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for is minimally, the
ability to buy a single channel for a fair price and not have to take
14 other channels of *garbage* with it at 15x the cost one of those
channels.  I say minimally because I suspect that the really savvy
consumers would actually rather even pay (again, at a fair price) per
show or episode.

But that's not what's happening with this fragmentation.  This
fragmentation is like the cable company splitting up that "once price
for all" bundle and putting the pieces into other bundles, each at the
same cost as that original "all in one" bundle that the consumers were
originally happy with and saw as fair value.  Of course now to continue
to getting those pieces of the original bundle that they were happy
with, consumers are having to buy multiples of these new bundles and
their costs are driving up sharply accordingly.

> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of
> that request.

I would submit that that is completely untrue.  Do you really think
Disney pulled out of Netflix and started their own service because
consumers wanted Disney to unbundle from Netflix?  I would suggest that
that is completely not why.  Rather, Disney was not happy to have just
a piece of the Netflix pie, and decided, as greedy as they are, that
they would sell their own pies and take the fully monthly subscription
price.

> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.

Again.  No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  Quite the opposite in fact.

The problem with suggesting that this is unbundling is that the cost of
Netflix didn't reduce when Disney pulled out and Disney (I would bet, I
haven't actually looked at it's cost) isn't charging the faction of the
Netflix cost that would be commensurate with their percentage of the
entire Netflix library.

So there has been no "unbundling" of any sort.  Rather it's been an
exercise of actually creating a new bundling.  And I still predict that
once the reality of this sets in with consumers, they are going to
reject it and head back to that low (zero) cost means of obtaining
their media that they used when they were unhappy with the previous
generation of bundling.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Ross Tajvar]

Well, not exactly. Each service is still a bunch of shows and movies
bundled together. If you only want to watch one show, you can't just buy
that, you have to buy the whole service.

Of course, there are services where you can buy individual movies and
episodes (Google Play comes to mind). But Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, etc.
don't operate that way.

-Ross

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 1:53 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that consumers
> have been
> begging for unbundling for years.
>
> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of that
> request.
>
> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 2019, at 01:54 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/Nov/19 22:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
> >> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
> >> fragmentation continues.
> >>
> >> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
> >> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
> >> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
> >> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
> >> piracy.
> >>
> >> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
> >> greed.  Again.
> >
> > This!
> >
> > At the beginning of this year, I dumped Prime Video because while I
> > initially got it for "The Grand Tour", almost all the other content was
> > not available in Africa. Didn't see the point of shelling out over
> > US$100/year for just one show, especially since we already have Netflix
> > + a local linear pay TV service.
> >
> > I bought the wife a new iPhone 11 Pro earlier this month. This got us
> > 1-year's worth of free AppleTV+. Not a lot of content so far, but I hear
> > the same about Disney+. Granted 2 of the 3 shows on TV+ are not bad. But
> > it's free, so what the heck.
> >
> > I'm not keen on paying for more than one streaming service, if I'm
> > honest. There already isn't enough time in the world for regular life,
> > never mind watching one streaming service... now we have to deal with
> > more, each with their own price? Not sure how well the streaming
> > providers expect regular folk to take all of this fragmentation.
> >
> > As my daughter would say, "They can miss me with it :-)".
> >
> > Mark.
> >
>
>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Owen DeLong]

While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that consumers have 
been
begging for unbundling for years.

This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of that request.

It’s unbundled service, exactly what they have been asking for.

Owen


> On Nov 26, 2019, at 01:54 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/Nov/19 22:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
>> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
>> fragmentation continues.
>> 
>> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
>> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
>> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
>> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
>> piracy.
>> 
>> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
>> greed.  Again.
> 
> This!
> 
> At the beginning of this year, I dumped Prime Video because while I
> initially got it for "The Grand Tour", almost all the other content was
> not available in Africa. Didn't see the point of shelling out over
> US$100/year for just one show, especially since we already have Netflix
> + a local linear pay TV service.
> 
> I bought the wife a new iPhone 11 Pro earlier this month. This got us
> 1-year's worth of free AppleTV+. Not a lot of content so far, but I hear
> the same about Disney+. Granted 2 of the 3 shows on TV+ are not bad. But
> it's free, so what the heck.
> 
> I'm not keen on paying for more than one streaming service, if I'm
> honest. There already isn't enough time in the world for regular life,
> never mind watching one streaming service... now we have to deal with
> more, each with their own price? Not sure how well the streaming
> providers expect regular folk to take all of this fragmentation.
> 
> As my daughter would say, "They can miss me with it :-)".
> 
> Mark.
> 

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 26/Nov/19 11:58, Bill Woodcock wrote:

>
> I foresee a new business model:
>
> VPN / streaming bundle.  Get all your streaming services bundled together, 
> proxied and VPNd from their native regions.

That was very popular in Africa as recently as 2017-ago. When Netflix
came into town with local clusters and/or OCA's, the pleasure and joy of
VPN and proxy hell died a sudden and resolute death.

I see some have tried again with Disney+, but not having to deal with
this hell for over 2 years, they've all given up and returned to simpler
ways :-). If it ain't local, they ain't buyin'...

Mark.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 13/Nov/19 01:32, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> My point was that Disney has a lock on much of the content kids love.
>
> Netflix/HBO/AmazonPrime, not so much.

Maybe it's the changing times, but my 4-year old nephew, 12-year old
sons and 8-year old nieces all get their kids programming from Youtube.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 13/Nov/19 00:05, Wayne Bouchard wrote:

>
> As to the "$10-20/mo for eight different services", I tend to think
> that people are gonna rebel at some point and seek out some sort of a
> centralized service and we'll kinda be back to where we started, with
> each source getting payment for the specific program viewed. Hard to
> tell, but the fragmentation thing will start to come to the forefront
> before too much longer, IMO.

I'd avoid investing in a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, e.t.c. streaming service until
we see where this lands.

I feel whatever happens is going to happen quickly.

We already see Apple starting to consolidate its various subscriptions
services to make this simpler for their customers.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 12/Nov/19 23:21, Tom Beecher wrote:

>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> But what is 100% certain is that Disney knows how to make content that
> people want to watch a LOT of , and Disney+ is going to be the only
> place to get that content. Customers are going to go where the content
> they want to watch is. That's not going to be Netflix/Amazon/Hulu,
> unless their forays into original content do a major reversal.

>From a global perspective, Netflix are doing better (on the face of it)
than any other provider because they are everywhere, and have no/very
little geographic restrictions.

I, for example, am not interested in Disney+ because they are not
available in Africa.

I already dropped Prime Video because they were not really in Africa. If
Disney+ go the same route, they'll end up the same way.

Speaking for Asia-Pac and South America too :-).

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Bill Woodcock]

>> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
>> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
>> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
>> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
>> piracy.
>> 
>> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
>> greed.  Again.
> 
> This!
> 
> At the beginning of this year, I dumped Prime Video because while I
> initially got it for "The Grand Tour", almost all the other content was
> not available in Africa.

I foresee a new business model:

VPN / streaming bundle.  Get all your streaming services bundled together, 
proxied and VPNd from their native regions.


-Bill



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 12/Nov/19 22:53, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> Different target audiences.
>
> Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on
> Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+
> streaming.  Instead of the whole family watching one show together,
> now we have segmentation in the marketplace.  
>
> End result is more total overall bandwidth consumption.

And an even greater social gap than what we now have.

Also, not sure about your kids, but mine are more interested in Fortnite
(boys) and Instagram (girls) than The Lion King.

I think the appeal of nostalgia by Disney and the rest of the Hollywood
establishment is likely to, I suspect, resonate more with the older
generation. I'm not sure our kids will enjoy the Mickey Mouse series as
much as we did.

For this younger generation, new, original content probably stands a
better chance. Time will tell.

Mark.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Tinka]

On 12/Nov/19 22:36, Brian J. Murrell wrote:

>
> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
> fragmentation continues.
>
> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
> piracy.
>
> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
> greed.  Again.

This!

At the beginning of this year, I dumped Prime Video because while I
initially got it for "The Grand Tour", almost all the other content was
not available in Africa. Didn't see the point of shelling out over
US$100/year for just one show, especially since we already have Netflix
+ a local linear pay TV service.

I bought the wife a new iPhone 11 Pro earlier this month. This got us
1-year's worth of free AppleTV+. Not a lot of content so far, but I hear
the same about Disney+. Granted 2 of the 3 shows on TV+ are not bad. But
it's free, so what the heck.

I'm not keen on paying for more than one streaming service, if I'm
honest. There already isn't enough time in the world for regular life,
never mind watching one streaming service... now we have to deal with
more, each with their own price? Not sure how well the streaming
providers expect regular folk to take all of this fragmentation.

As my daughter would say, "They can miss me with it :-)".

Mark.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: Disney+ Streaming

[Aaron Gould]

Justin’s original question was “….. Is it well known where the newly released 
Disney+ streaming service content is sourced?...”

 

With Eric’s finding of “I saw various content being served from Akamai, Amazon, 
Fastly and Limelight so far. I'm in Montreal.”

 

Is this an absolute answer as to how Disney+ is handling delivery of their 
content?  If not, are there any Disney folks listening that could respond to me 
either off list or on the community thread here about how we should expect to 
see this Disney+ content sourced and whether or not Disney+ has or is planning 
on building out an ISP-located CDN type of network, much like all the others? 
(OCA, FNA, AANP, AEC, ACE, GGC)

 

-Aaron

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Ross Tajvar]

I think it would be more on topic if everyone weren't just guessing what
users will do based on hypothetical behavior patterns and hypothetical
content shifts.

I WOULD be interested to see some data showing e.g. a drop in traffic to
one service and a boost in traffic to another service when a particular bit
of media was moved from the former to the latter. (Or a boost in both, etc.)

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 11:04 AM Stephen Satchell  wrote:

> CAVAET: I don't have a dog in this hunt.
>
> On 11/13/19 6:46 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> > This is silly off-topic. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t
> > stay here, according to NANOG guidelines.
>
> > https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ >
> https://www.nanog.org/bylaws/
>
> "The NANOG mailing list was established in 1994 to provide an open forum
> for the exchange of technical information, and lively discussion of
> SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES (emphasis mine) that require
> cooperation among network service providers.
>
> "Posts to NANOG’s mailing list should be focused on operational and
> technical content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws."
>
> Yes, some of the Disney Plus thread has strayed outside the four corners
> of the rules of the mailing list, but the bulk of the thread has to do
> with two things: geolocation inaccuracies, and traffic capacity shifts.
>   For some network operators on this list, the discussion does not
> describe issues on their networks.  But "some" is not "all".
>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Stephen Satchell]

CAVAET: I don't have a dog in this hunt.

On 11/13/19 6:46 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:

This is silly off-topic. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t
stay here, according to NANOG guidelines.



https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ > 
https://www.nanog.org/bylaws/


"The NANOG mailing list was established in 1994 to provide an open forum 
for the exchange of technical information, and lively discussion of 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES (emphasis mine) that require 
cooperation among network service providers.


"Posts to NANOG’s mailing list should be focused on operational and 
technical content only, as described by the NANOG Bylaws."


Yes, some of the Disney Plus thread has strayed outside the four corners 
of the rules of the mailing list, but the bulk of the thread has to do 
with two things: geolocation inaccuracies, and traffic capacity shifts. 
 For some network operators on this list, the discussion does not 
describe issues on their networks.  But "some" is not "all".

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mel Beckman]

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  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 11/13/19 1:06 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
>> * mikeboli...@gmail.com (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.)

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Bryan Holloway]

On 11/13/19 1:06 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:

* mikeboli...@gmail.com (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.)

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Niels Bakker]

* mikeboli...@gmail.com (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.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mike Bolitho]

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?

- Mike Bolitho


On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:34 PM Matthew Petach 
wrote:

>
> My point was that Disney has a lock on much of the content kids love.
>
> Netflix/HBO/AmazonPrime, not so much.
>
> So, the new eyeballs aren't going to be from parents watching different
> shows, it'll be from parents watching their adult-ish stuff, while the kids
> are happily ensconced with Disney+.
>
> I called out Game of Thrones and Good Omens as shows that are popular with
> adults but that aren't terribly family friendly, so you won't be getting
> many 12-and-unders watching them.
>
> That's where the new eyeballs come from.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 13:17 Mark Andrews  wrote:
>
>> They can already stream different content to multiple devices
>> simultaneously.
>> All this does is make some content that wasn’t available previously now
>> available.
>>
>> People can really only watch one thing at a time.  Net streaming of the
>> last mile
>> is unlikely to change much.  Just where that content is coming from may
>> change.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> > On 13 Nov 2019, at 07:53, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Different target audiences.
>> >
>> > Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on
>> Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+ streaming.
>> Instead of the whole family watching one show together, now we have
>> segmentation in the marketplace.
>> >
>> > End result is more total overall bandwidth consumption.
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 12:38 Brian J. Murrell 
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:26 -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I can foresee a lot of families subscribing to Netflix *and* Disney+
>> > > because neither one has all the content the family wants to watch.
>> >
>> > Absolutely.  But the time spent watching Disney would *replace* (not be
>> > in addition to, or would it?  Would Disney's content result in existing
>> > streamers watching more hours of streaming than they did before?)
>> > Netflix watching.
>> >
>> > > Has anybody seen a significant drop in total streaming traffic due to
>> > > Netflix
>> > > users jumping ship to Amazon/Hulu, or are consumers just biting the
>> > > bullet,
>> > > coughing up the $$, and streaming more total because across the
>> > > services
>> > > there's more stuff they want to watch?
>> >
>> > I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
>> > comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
>> > fragmentation continues.
>> >
>> > I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
>> > to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
>> > back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
>> > (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
>> > piracy.
>> >
>> > The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
>> > greed.  Again.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > b.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
>>
>>
>>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:32 -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
> My point was that Disney has a lock on much of the content kids love.

Which was, until Disney+, on Netflix.

https://www.theverge.com/2012/12/4/3727688/netflix-streaming-rights-new-disney-marvel-pixar-movies

> Netflix/HBO/AmazonPrime, not so much.

The above article (and the number of kids in my life with their
eyeballs constantly glued to TV screens) says otherwise.

> So, the new eyeballs aren't going to be from parents watching
> different
> shows, it'll be from parents watching their adult-ish stuff, while
> the kids
> are happily ensconced with Disney+.

But those little eyeballs aren't new.  They have already been watching
as much streaming as their parents would allow -- unrestricted in
probably too many cases.

> I called out Game of Thrones and Good Omens as shows that are popular
> with
> adults but that aren't terribly family friendly, so you won't be
> getting
> many 12-and-unders watching them.

No, instead they were already watching the ass-barn-load of kids
content that is on the existing streaming services.

b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Matthew Petach]

My point was that Disney has a lock on much of the content kids love.

Netflix/HBO/AmazonPrime, not so much.

So, the new eyeballs aren't going to be from parents watching different
shows, it'll be from parents watching their adult-ish stuff, while the kids
are happily ensconced with Disney+.

I called out Game of Thrones and Good Omens as shows that are popular with
adults but that aren't terribly family friendly, so you won't be getting
many 12-and-unders watching them.

That's where the new eyeballs come from.

Matt


On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 13:17 Mark Andrews  wrote:

> They can already stream different content to multiple devices
> simultaneously.
> All this does is make some content that wasn’t available previously now
> available.
>
> People can really only watch one thing at a time.  Net streaming of the
> last mile
> is unlikely to change much.  Just where that content is coming from may
> change.
>
> Mark
>
> > On 13 Nov 2019, at 07:53, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Different target audiences.
> >
> > Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on
> Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+ streaming.
> Instead of the whole family watching one show together, now we have
> segmentation in the marketplace.
> >
> > End result is more total overall bandwidth consumption.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 12:38 Brian J. Murrell 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:26 -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> > >
> > > I can foresee a lot of families subscribing to Netflix *and* Disney+
> > > because neither one has all the content the family wants to watch.
> >
> > Absolutely.  But the time spent watching Disney would *replace* (not be
> > in addition to, or would it?  Would Disney's content result in existing
> > streamers watching more hours of streaming than they did before?)
> > Netflix watching.
> >
> > > Has anybody seen a significant drop in total streaming traffic due to
> > > Netflix
> > > users jumping ship to Amazon/Hulu, or are consumers just biting the
> > > bullet,
> > > coughing up the $$, and streaming more total because across the
> > > services
> > > there's more stuff they want to watch?
> >
> > I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
> > comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
> > fragmentation continues.
> >
> > I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
> > to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
> > back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
> > (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
> > piracy.
> >
> > The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
> > greed.  Again.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > b.
> >
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
>
>
>

Sony PlayStation Vue, was Re: Disney+ Streaming

[John Sage]

On 11/12/19 11:49 AM, Justin Krejci wrote:
I see the Disney service went live today, with some load issues 
according to various news reports and down detector. Is it well known 
where the newly released Disney+ streaming service content is sourced? 
Are they using their own servers on AS22604 or using one or more of the 
established CDNs? Or something combination or something else entirely?



As the service grows in popularity, and its breadth of content and 
manageable price is likely to attract a lot of growth, I'd like to plan 
for any necessary augmentations to the network. I have not yet seen a 
noticeable change in traffic trends locally but I am sure during the 
evening time it is likely to be more apparent where it all comes from.



Apropos of something, Sony has announce that it's pulling the plug on 
its PlayStation Vue Internet streaming TV service via the PlayStation 
PS4 platform, effective January 30, 2020.


Might free-up some bandwidth for someone, somewhere...

Ref: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/faq/plan-updates/


- John
--

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Wayne Bouchard]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 04:52:25PM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 12:53 -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
> > Different target audiences.
> 
> That are already satisfied with existing services, so no new target
> audiences.
> 
> > Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on
> > Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+
> > streaming.
> 
> But they could watch lots of (Disney even) content on Netflix already. 
> So I still don't see an increase in consumption just because of
> Disney+.
> 
> > Instead of the whole family watching one show together, now we have
> > segmentation in the marketplace.
> 
> Disney+ doesn't change "whole family watching one show together" (or
> not -- because individuals watching their own streams is already
> possible) model from the current model.
> 
> Cheers,
> b

I agree with this. I mean, it might bring on a few new streaming
viewers but these would be those who haven't yet transitioned to
streaming video for the majority of their watching habits. So this
won't really establish a new audience but it could help siphon more
away from cable/sattelite. Its just the equivilant of a new channel
coming along. One person can only practically watch one show at a time
(maybe doesn't apply to football games...) so if there's a given
audience size, all this really does is shuffle the ratings around a
bit.

As to the "$10-20/mo for eight different services", I tend to think
that people are gonna rebel at some point and seek out some sort of a
centralized service and we'll kinda be back to where we started, with
each source getting payment for the specific program viewed. Hard to
tell, but the fragmentation thing will start to come to the forefront
before too much longer, IMO.

-Wayne


---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 12:53 -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
> Different target audiences.

That are already satisfied with existing services, so no new target
audiences.

> Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on
> Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+
> streaming.

But they could watch lots of (Disney even) content on Netflix already. 
So I still don't see an increase in consumption just because of
Disney+.

> Instead of the whole family watching one show together, now we have
> segmentation in the marketplace.

Disney+ doesn't change "whole family watching one show together" (or
not -- because individuals watching their own streams is already
possible) model from the current model.

Cheers,
b



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 08:17 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> People can really only watch one thing at a time.

This is my thought also.

> Net streaming of the last mile
> is unlikely to change much.  Just where that content is coming from
> may change.

Indeed.

Cheers,
b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Jared Mauch]

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 4:19 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> People can really only watch one thing at a time.  Net streaming of the last 
> mile
> is unlikely to change much.  Just where that content is coming from may 
> change.

This is my feeling as well. It may impact people whose models assume that 20% 
of video is Netflix (or whatever service) as that ratio changes. 

- Jared 

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Tom Beecher]

>
> I guess the question is, will Disney content compel users who are not
> already streaming to start streaming?
>

Maybe, maybe not.

But what is 100% certain is that Disney knows how to make content that
people want to watch a LOT of , and Disney+ is going to be the only place
to get that content. Customers are going to go where the content they want
to watch is. That's not going to be Netflix/Amazon/Hulu, unless their
forays into original content do a major reversal.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:00 PM Brian J. Murrell 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 19:49 +, Justin Krejci wrote:
> >
> > As the service grows in popularity, and its breadth of content and
> > manageable price is likely to attract a lot of growth, I'd like to
> > plan for any necessary augmentations to the network.
>
> From the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective is a new
> streaming service likely to (significantly) "add new viewers" or more
> likely to just shift existing viewers away from an existing service
> (i.e Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.) to Disney, resulting in a net-wash
> from the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective?
>
> I guess the question is, will Disney content compel users who are not
> already streaming to start streaming?
>
> Cheers,
> b.
>
>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Mark Andrews]

They can already stream different content to multiple devices simultaneously.
All this does is make some content that wasn’t available previously now 
available.

People can really only watch one thing at a time.  Net streaming of the last 
mile
is unlikely to change much.  Just where that content is coming from may change.

Mark

> On 13 Nov 2019, at 07:53, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> 
> Different target audiences.
> 
> Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on Netflix 
> while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+ streaming.  Instead 
> of the whole family watching one show together, now we have segmentation in 
> the marketplace.  
> 
> End result is more total overall bandwidth consumption.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 12:38 Brian J. Murrell  wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:26 -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> > 
> > I can foresee a lot of families subscribing to Netflix *and* Disney+
> > because neither one has all the content the family wants to watch.
> 
> Absolutely.  But the time spent watching Disney would *replace* (not be
> in addition to, or would it?  Would Disney's content result in existing
> streamers watching more hours of streaming than they did before?)
> Netflix watching.
> 
> > Has anybody seen a significant drop in total streaming traffic due to
> > Netflix
> > users jumping ship to Amazon/Hulu, or are consumers just biting the
> > bullet,
> > coughing up the $$, and streaming more total because across the
> > services
> > there's more stuff they want to watch?
> 
> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
> fragmentation continues.
> 
> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
> piracy.
> 
> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
> greed.  Again.
> 
> Cheers,
> b.
> 

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Blake Hudson]

Neither Good Omens nor Game of Thrones are available for streaming on 
Netflix (you'll have to go to one of their competitors). Overall I tend 
to agree with Brian that people's time and eyeballs are finite. As more 
streaming services emerge, usage will simply be split between streaming 
providers. There might be a slight increase in overall streaming usage 
due to the effect you mentioned (more content available for a wider 
audience than in previous years), but I don't expect it to be an 
overnight change for our industry.


Matthew Petach wrote on 11/12/2019 2:53 PM:


Different target audiences.

Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on 
Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+ 
streaming.  Instead of the whole family watching one show together, 
now we have segmentation in the marketplace.


End result is more total overall bandwidth consumption.

Matt


On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 12:38 Brian J. Murrell > wrote:


On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:26 -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> I can foresee a lot of families subscribing to Netflix *and* Disney+
> because neither one has all the content the family wants to watch.

Absolutely.  But the time spent watching Disney would *replace*
(not be
in addition to, or would it?  Would Disney's content result in
existing
streamers watching more hours of streaming than they did before?)
Netflix watching.

> Has anybody seen a significant drop in total streaming traffic
due to
> Netflix
> users jumping ship to Amazon/Hulu, or are consumers just biting the
> bullet,
> coughing up the $$, and streaming more total because across the
> services
> there's more stuff they want to watch?

I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
fragmentation continues.

I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to
subscribe
to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
(or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
piracy.

The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
greed.  Again.

Cheers,
b.

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Matthew Petach]

Different target audiences.

Now the parents can be watching "Good Omens" or "Game of Thrones" on
Netflix while the kids are streaming "The Lion King" on Disney+ streaming.
Instead of the whole family watching one show together, now we have
segmentation in the marketplace.

End result is more total overall bandwidth consumption.

Matt


On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 12:38 Brian J. Murrell  wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:26 -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> >
> > I can foresee a lot of families subscribing to Netflix *and* Disney+
> > because neither one has all the content the family wants to watch.
>
> Absolutely.  But the time spent watching Disney would *replace* (not be
> in addition to, or would it?  Would Disney's content result in existing
> streamers watching more hours of streaming than they did before?)
> Netflix watching.
>
> > Has anybody seen a significant drop in total streaming traffic due to
> > Netflix
> > users jumping ship to Amazon/Hulu, or are consumers just biting the
> > bullet,
> > coughing up the $$, and streaming more total because across the
> > services
> > there's more stuff they want to watch?
>
> I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
> comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
> fragmentation continues.
>
> I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
> to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
> back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
> (or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
> piracy.
>
> The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
> greed.  Again.
>
> Cheers,
> b.
>
>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:26 -0500, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> 
> I can foresee a lot of families subscribing to Netflix *and* Disney+
> because neither one has all the content the family wants to watch.

Absolutely.  But the time spent watching Disney would *replace* (not be
in addition to, or would it?  Would Disney's content result in existing
streamers watching more hours of streaming than they did before?)
Netflix watching.

> Has anybody seen a significant drop in total streaming traffic due to
> Netflix
> users jumping ship to Amazon/Hulu, or are consumers just biting the
> bullet,
> coughing up the $$, and streaming more total because across the
> services
> there's more stuff they want to watch?

I actually suspect streaming is going to decline (at least in
comparison to where it could have grown to) if this streaming service
fragmentation continues.

I think people are going to reject the idea that they need to subscribe
to a dozen streaming services at $10-$20/mo. each and will be driven
back the good old "single source" (piracy) they used to use before 1
(or perhaps 2) streaming services kept them happy enough to abandon
piracy.

The content providers are going to piss in their bed again due to
greed.  Again.

Cheers,
b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:58:34 -0500, "Brian J. Murrell" said:

> I guess the question is, will Disney content compel users who are not
> already streaming to start streaming?

I can foresee a lot of families subscribing to Netflix *and* Disney+
because neither one has all the content the family wants to watch.

Has anybody seen a significant drop in total streaming traffic due to Netflix
users jumping ship to Amazon/Hulu, or are consumers just biting the bullet,
coughing up the $$, and streaming more total because across the services
there's more stuff they want to watch?




pgpswtN64dt8I.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Clayton Zekelman]

At 03:17 PM 12/11/2019, Brian J. Murrell wrote:


Fair enough, in the cases where operators are Netflix OC partners and
might see a shift in network use from a Netflic OC appliance to
external their network to other streaming services.

But for an operator who doesn't have an OC Appliances, is there likely
to be much difference?  I suppose that was the context I was thinking
in.


Sure.  You could see changes in where traffic comes from.   It may 
shift from peering to transit.



That said, I (admittedly, idly) wonder what percentage of users (world-
wide, by nation, geographical area, etc.) are served by OC Appliances.
I really have no clue as to the penetration of OC Appliances.


OCAs make a huge difference in our network.  Between the two ASs we 
operate in different regions - to the tune of maybe 40 Gbps.




--

Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 15:08 -0500, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
> Netflix has done a great job deploying OC Appliances.   A Netflix 
> user != Amazon, Hulu, etc...

Fair enough, in the cases where operators are Netflix OC partners and
might see a shift in network use from a Netflic OC appliance to
external their network to other streaming services.

But for an operator who doesn't have an OC Appliances, is there likely
to be much difference?  I suppose that was the context I was thinking
in.

That said, I (admittedly, idly) wonder what percentage of users (world-
wide, by nation, geographical area, etc.) are served by OC Appliances. 
I really have no clue as to the penetration of OC Appliances.


Cheers,
b?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Clayton Zekelman]

Netflix has done a great job deploying OC Appliances.   A Netflix 
user != Amazon, Hulu, etc...


At 02:58 PM 12/11/2019, Brian J. Murrell wrote:

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 19:49 +, Justin Krejci wrote:
>
> As the service grows in popularity, and its breadth of content and
> manageable price is likely to attract a lot of growth, I'd like to
> plan for any necessary augmentations to the network.

From the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective is a new
streaming service likely to (significantly) "add new viewers" or more
likely to just shift existing viewers away from an existing service
(i.e Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.) to Disney, resulting in a net-wash
from the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective?

I guess the question is, will Disney content compel users who are not
already streaming to start streaming?

Cheers,
b.




--

Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Michael Crapse]

They have some improper geolocation for us, would be nice to have them
input to this chain.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:00 PM Brian J. Murrell 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 19:49 +, Justin Krejci wrote:
> >
> > As the service grows in popularity, and its breadth of content and
> > manageable price is likely to attract a lot of growth, I'd like to
> > plan for any necessary augmentations to the network.
>
> From the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective is a new
> streaming service likely to (significantly) "add new viewers" or more
> likely to just shift existing viewers away from an existing service
> (i.e Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.) to Disney, resulting in a net-wash
> from the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective?
>
> I guess the question is, will Disney content compel users who are not
> already streaming to start streaming?
>
> Cheers,
> b.
>
>

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 19:49 +, Justin Krejci wrote:
> 
> As the service grows in popularity, and its breadth of content and
> manageable price is likely to attract a lot of growth, I'd like to
> plan for any necessary augmentations to the network.

From the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective is a new
streaming service likely to (significantly) "add new viewers" or more
likely to just shift existing viewers away from an existing service
(i.e Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.) to Disney, resulting in a net-wash
from the end-user/viewer network capacity perspective?

I guess the question is, will Disney content compel users who are not
already streaming to start streaming?

Cheers,
b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Disney+ Streaming

[Eric Dugas]

I saw various content being served from Akamai, Amazon, Fastly and Limelight so 
far. I'm in Montreal.

Video is served from the following hosts:
vod-akc-na-central-1.media.dssott.com
vod-ftc-na-central-1.media.dssott.com
vod-ftc-na-east-1.media.dssott.com
vod-ftc-na-west-2.media.dssott.com
vod-llc-na-west-2.media.dssott.com
vod-vzc-na-east-1.media.dssott.com

On Nov 12 2019, at 2:49 pm, Justin Krejci  wrote:
> I see the Disney service went live today, with some load issues according to 
> various news reports and down detector. Is it well known where the newly 
> released Disney+ streaming service content is sourced? Are they using their 
> own servers on AS22604 or using one or more of the established CDNs? Or 
> something combination or something else entirely?
>
>
> As the service grows in popularity, and its breadth of content and manageable 
> price is likely to attract a lot of growth, I'd like to plan for any 
> necessary augmentations to the network. I have not yet seen a noticeable 
> change in traffic trends locally but I am sure during the evening time it is 
> likely to be more apparent where it all comes from.