well folks here goes my opion/they said folks wouldn't give up their land lines /well guess what they did by the thousands .You just can't argue with that .Well i think folks can go with just a netflix service.think on that awhile while you sift thru all slinglions b.s.
scamflix goes bust ..aka pink sheets later part in 2013
Streaming media has limitations and that’s not a bad thing, you simply have to apply it to the best set of applications as you would any other technology. But many are hell-bent on the concept that one technology has to replace another, when in fact, most times, one complements the other. Streaming media is never going to be as reliable, scalable or as high-quality as cable TV, even in the future. Those who suggest that do so as they don’t understand how streaming works and the limitations to the technology. Think of all the companies over the past 10 years who said their technology, be it better compression or P2P delivery etc. could solve the issues with delivering high-quality video to “TV sized” audience. They couldn’t. And even with guys like Netflix taking the smart approach of placing caches for free inside ISP networks, there is a limitation to what can be achieved.
In 2009, Akamai, the largest CDN on the Internet peaked at 7.7M simultaneous video streams during the Obama inauguration, for all of their customers combined. It was so much traffic on their network that they had to cap customers and they made it clear that there is no such thing as “unlimited” capacity on the Internet. Last year, YouTube claimed they did the largest live event on the web with 8M simultaneous streams. So three years in between events and the largest live event numbers didn’t grow that much. Of course years later, both Akamai and YouTube’s network have grown and their capacity improved, but the 8M number puts things into perspective.
CBS Sports said the NFL Playoff game (Broncos vs. Jaguars Ravens) from this past weekend had 35.3M viewers and peaked at over 40M. Even if half of those were simultaneous viewers, that would be nearly 18M streams, for one show. Multiply that times the number of shows going on at the same time and the numbers are huge. The Internet can’t and won’t be able to handle that kind of volume, now, or in the future, at cable TV quality. People love to argue the point, but the numbers, facts and data proves otherwise. When you turn on the TV, it works and you know what type of experience you will get from an HD channel. On the web, you don’t even know what HD really means as some call video HD when it isn’t, when compared to broadcast standards.
With streaming, there is no guarantee what the experience will be. Content services like Netflix and Amazon and CDNs like Akamai are working hard to give consumers the best experience they can, but they are working with technology that has limitations when it comes to scaling. Sometimes you can get good quality video with no problems. Many times you can’t, or you don’t have a consistent experience or there is some other computer/browser/player/app issue. There are a lot of moving pieces in the entire video ecosystem as opposed to cable TV which has very few.
It seems many outsiders want to judge the “success” of the streaming media industry and the technology on how quickly it can “displace” cable TV as a broadcast distribution medium. What a false idea. The fact is, the technology is already proven and for the right applications, we’ve already seen plenty of success stories. All streaming services combined, the size of the industry is in the billions of dollars, content owners are starting to get paid and business models evolve each year. That’s the definition of success. For those in the industry who understand this, don’t let those who try to set false expectations of streaming replacing cable TV distract you from staying focused and applying the technology where it is best suited.
the technology will never support the kind of video quality and scale that cable TV infrastructure can. In 2000 the average video was delivered at 300 Kbps. Today it's 2,000 Kbps. That's not a huge advancement in quality 13 years later.
It's not that the average ISP can only give you 2 Mbps, it's that Netflix makes a tradeoff about how good the quality of the video needs to be, versus how much it costs them to deliver it. The higher the bitrate, the more money they have to spend. With cable TV, it's a fixed cost and my MSO does not spend more money to deliver me a 720p channel versus one in 1080p...Dan Rayburn
REED HASTINGS"CON MAN" SCAM AT CES with 4K resolution Demo and reality is far different
All of Netflix's content is delivered over the public Internet. Cable TV is delivered over the MSOs private network. You can't lump in Netflix + Cable TV subscribers together.
As for the cost effective argument, you have it backwards. Every time something is delivered via streaming, there is an additional cost. With cable, it does not matter how many hours of video someone consumes as there is a fixed cost. Streaming is much more expensive.
Quality wise, there is no comparison. Based on Netflix's own data, their average video stream is delivered at just over 2 Mbps. Cable is delivered at multiple times that. I don't know what you mean when you say "UltraHD". While you say cable does not have a chance to go to 4K, neither does streaming. The demo Samsung showed with Netflix, of 4K streaming at CES, was not delivered over the public internet.
There are enough facts and data in the market to show what is really taking place and streaming media will not replace cable TV as the main distribution medium.
You've got to admit Singh know it's stuff about it...... The other part is two bif boys took the stock as a toy/tool to fill a little more their pockets... So about next earning the question is, How much Reeds is going to lie....
I don't know if you wrote all of this, but the point about scalability is an important one when considering the streaming market as it exists today. However, while it is true that simultaneous streaming to tens of millions of users is currently not supported under current internet architecture, there is no reason to believe that the supply of bandwidth will not increase should demand in the streaming marketplace rise to the order of the cable markets. Moreover, assuming that the limitation is the architecture, places the constraint to improving bandwidth on cost, which again only restricts development when demand is low. Furthermore, there is reason to think that innovations and new inventions will lead to some level of creative destruction in the network hardware space and result in higher bandwidth at lower costs moving into the future. Also, you mention the improvement in internet bandwidth over the last 13 years as improving only slightly. This is certainly true for the average internet user, but only because of regulations, and an inherent conflict of interest between ISPs who provide telephone, cable-television on the one hand, and internet on the other. The technology to provide 100+Mbps bandwidth and the infrastructure is largely in place in most large American cities, and is only limited by the ISP's choice to "tier" service plans.