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.
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
>>
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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?
* 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
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 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,
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
>
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
