Re: RIPE our of IPv4

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:04 -0500, Brandon Martin said:

> definitely the lagging factor, here.  I suspect it's at least partially
> because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments
> for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to
> support first-class dual stack, many enterprise IT folks lack the
> education to recognize the nuance between public addressing and
> unfiltered public reachability of a given host.  I suspect many of them
> are already using IPv6 for LAN traffic without even realizing it given
> Windows' penchant for doing so since Vista.

Judging how long it took to (mostly) stamp out CLASSA/B/C nonsense,
we're in for at least a decade of IPv6 firewalls that block all ICMP, plus
whatever common IPv6 misconfigurations and misconceptions are
out there (I was deploying this stuff literally last century, so I admit
not knowing what people are screwing up currently).



pgpwdX4RrpNns.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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: RIPE our of IPv4

[Brandon Martin]

On 11/29/19 11:29 AM, Brian Knight wrote:

0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some 
service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 
connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.


I help admin a very small (<1k subs, but growing) municipal ISP.  We 
have had a couple requests from residential subscribers for IPv6 which 
is not yet enabled due to lack of support for a nice, but not strictly 
required, feature from one vendor in our stack (and they have opened a 
feature request and promised support in the next release - we'll see if 
they deliver).  If a SP with <1k subs has ANY registered interest, I'd 
say a non-trivial SP is going to have some even if it's not being 
communicated.


Certainly, to me, if I have a choice of service providers, and one 
offers native IPv6 (or even well-supported 6rd) while the other offers 
no IPv6 and has no plans or is even downright IPv6-hostile (e.g. mucking 
with protocol 41), that's certainly going to factor into my decision. 
This is a pre-sales issue which, on standard consumer services, is 
unlikely to ever be communicated to the provider.  However, I'll admit 
that I'm not a normal customer.


Interestingly, albeit somewhat unsurprisingly, interest from enterprises 
on DIA services (where the aforementioned feature is irrelevant) has 
been not just nonexistent but outright hostile.  Every one of them has 
asked to have it explicitly disabled when prompted.  Enterprise is 
definitely the lagging factor, here.  I suspect it's at least partially 
because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments 
for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to 
support first-class dual stack, many enterprise IT folks lack the 
education to recognize the nuance between public addressing and 
unfiltered public reachability of a given host.  I suspect many of them 
are already using IPv6 for LAN traffic without even realizing it given 
Windows' penchant for doing so since Vista.


--
Brandon Martin

Re: RIPE our of IPv4

[Mike Hammett]

"So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to 
us." 


Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important. 


Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Brian Knight"  
To: "Mark Andrews"  
Cc: "nanog"  
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:29:17 AM 
Subject: Re: RIPE our of IPv4 


> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote: 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight  wrote: 
>> 
>>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote: 
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha  
>>> wrote: 
 - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: 
>> 
>> [snip] 
 there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to 
 be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6. 
 IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed. 
 Thanks, 
 Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA 
>>> I seewell let me translate it you MBA-eese for you: 
>>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort 
>>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers 
>>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your 
>>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization 
>>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on 
>>> the blockchain. Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago. Big content and 
>>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and 
>>> iot botnets. 
>> 
>> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers. 
>> They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & 
>> services via IPv4 in 2019. 
> 
> No you can’t. You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it is ON 
> THE INTERNET. It is directly reachable via IPv6. Selling Internet 
> connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days. Don’t 
> you believe in “Truth in Advertising”? 

I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all 
Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via IPv4...” 

0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some 
service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 
connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us. 

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

Thanks, 

-Brian 

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 30 Nov, 2019

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  784723
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  299243
Deaggregation factor:  2.62
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  378795
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 66322
Prefixes per ASN: 11.83
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   57021
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   24299
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:9301
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:281
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.5
Max AS path length visible:  36
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 44555)  27
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:40
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:40
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  29742
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   24346
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  49
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:13
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:307
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2843090560
Equivalent to 169 /8s, 118 /16s and 30 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   76.8
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   76.8
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.4
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  261726

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   209564
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   61127
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.43
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  203680
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:84978
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   10188
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   19.99
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   2823
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1513
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.6
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 25
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   5219
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  771586176
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 253 /16s and 120 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-141625
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:230767
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   107041
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.16
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   228081
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:109168
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18644
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:12.23
ARIN Regi

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: RIPE our of IPv4

[Brian Knight]

> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha 
>>> wrote:
 - On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
 there is no ROI at this point. In this kind of environment there needs to
 be a strong case to invest the capex to support IPv6.
 IPv6 must be supported on the CxO level in order to be deployed.
 Thanks,
 Sabri, (Badum tsss) MBA
>>> I seewell let me translate it you MBA-eese for you:
>>> FANG deployed ipv6 nearly 10 years ago. Since deploying ipv6, the cohort
>>> experienced 300% CAGR. Also, everything is mobile, and all mobile providers
>>> in the usa offer ipv6 by default in most cases. Latency! Scale! As your
>>> company launches its digital transformation iot 2020 virtualization
>>> container initiatives, ipv6 will be an integral part of staying relevant on
>>> the blockchain.  Also, FANG did it nearly 10 years ago.  Big content and
>>> big eyeballs are on ipv6, ipv4 is a winnowing longtail of irrelevance and
>>> iot botnets.
>> 
>> None of which matters a damn to almost all of my business eyeball customers. 
>>  They can still get from our network to 100% of all Internet content & 
>> services via IPv4 in 2019.
> 
> No you can’t.  You can’t reach the machine I’m typing on via IPv4 and it is 
> ON THE INTERNET.  It is directly reachable via IPv6.  Selling Internet 
> connectivity without IPv6 should be considered fraud these days.  Don’t
> you believe in “Truth in Advertising”?

I had meant to write “They can still get from our network to 100% of all 
Internet content and services that matter to them [our customers] via IPv4...”

0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some 
service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6 
connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.

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

Thanks,

-Brian

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.
>>