The Intertubes are alight this week with old news — that Netflix is the largest user of U.S. Internet bandwidth. Most stories cite a Sandvine report I won’t link to because you’d have to subscribe and I like you too much for that. Better still, look at the very interesting graphic above, courtesy of Arbor Networks. This chart has been floating around the net for a couple of months and shows the result of an Arbor study of several U.S. ISPs illustrating how we Americans spend our Internet bandwidth. There are three lessons I think we can learn from this chart: 1) that BitTorrent is no longer (or perhaps never was) the threat were were told by ISPs; 2) that video is by far the Big Kahuna of bandwidth, and: 3) that Netflix may be approaching the point where it is too big to fail.
First a look at BitTorrent, which ISPs love to complain about. Torrents are down to only eight percent of Internet traffic, but much more important is the fact that torrents have always been more polite than video streams. Here are two more graphs courtesy of Arbor Networks. First take a look at how web traffic varies over a typical 24 hour period: Now look at p2p traffic over the same period:The two are reciprocals of each other. This is by design, not coincidence. The nature of BitTorrent is to grab bandwidth not utilized by other services. So when web surfing declines in the late night and early morning hours BitTorrent increases.
Using only eight percent of Internet bandwidth and substantially less than that during peak hours, I think BitTorrent’s day as the Internet bogeyman are past, though I doubt the MPAA will see it that way.
Even more interesting is the rise of Internet video. Back in 2005 when iTunes users were downloading seven million three-minute music videos, readers of this column were downloading 2.5 million hours of NerdTV. I remember those downloads cost me $0.25 per gigabyte — ouch! In 2010 Netflix spent about $0.015 per gigabyte with an average 1.8-gigabyte movie download costing 2.7 cents to stream. Compare this to the average $1.00 Netflix spends to ship and receive every DVD and you can see their current business transformation from DVDs to streaming will lead to dramatically lower costs, freeing-up capital to buy more content. It’s a virtuous cycle that Netflix (and all it’s competitors to be sure) will attempt to leverage into its own form of too big to fail.
None of this is big news, I suppose, but think for a moment about the implications it has for both future services and for the commercial value of the Internet. Streaming costs are going down, not up, so what’s cheap today will be cheaper still tomorrow. These lower costs will allow higher quality (1080p video, for example) and they’ll shortly reach the point where stream costs will be lower than over-the-air broadcast costs on a per-viewer basis, which in the longer run is an inevitable prescription for the death of broadcast TV. It’s not a matter of if but when this will happen.
Even Luddites will be sucked into the Internet age if they want to communicate.
Despite having spent billions to help along the recent digital TV conversion, I’m sure the Federal Communications Commission will be happy to see broadcast TV disappear since it will do so with a flurry of spectrum auctions bringing-in many more billions to the Treasury. And that freed-up spectrum will go into more data services as we move toward the all-IP all the time future for carriers I have long predicted.
As for Netflix, it is hard to bet against the company. Hollywood studios glower and hint that Netflix will be deprived of content as current content deals — specifically Starz — expire, but that won’t happen. Dropping DVDs completely would transfer $2 billion straight to Netflix’s content acquisition budget through a combination of an increased subscriber base at lower prices and no more postal fees.
That $2 billion will buy a heck of a lot of crow in Hollywood, where cash is king.
Does Netflix have some way of defending its market territory, or will it be shouldered aside by AT&T, Comcast, etc. as they improve their on-demand offerings? I buy on-demand movies on AT&T U-Verse because it’s already attached to my (still analog) TV. Will service providers have an edge over Netflix because of their direct connection to consumers?
I have Time Warner Cable at home. If the cable companies are going to compete with Netflix they will have to dramatically lower their prices. They are still trying to get $4 or $5 for one on-demand movie. You can get Netflix for $8 per month.
What Netflix lacks that cable can still offer is depth. There’s no “on-demand” option for new releases; their streaming catalog of recent hits is still very shallow. My Netflix viewing is actually declining, because I’ve watched most of what I was interested in, and there’s so little new stuff. I’m willing to pay the $1 on-demand for Zediva, though, and am using them much more (I have two small children and don’t go out to the movies).
Perhaps this will all have an unintended side-effect: yet more rapid urbanization. I’m not suggesting that folks will move to the city when they find that they’re isolated without cheap broadband, but rather that the mobile, mostly young, will find yet another reason to leave the farm.
Perhaps not coincidentally, there was a line in an article I recently read which referred to the anonymity of the city as a reason for tolerance of “minorities” in cities. IOW, the Tea Baggers who want the USofA to return to the glory of the 18th century have a demographic tsunami between their desire and reality. OK, a craggy segue.
Robert,
I think the proliferation of high-speed IP-based communications will allow people even more freedom to choose where they live. Urban and suburban areas have the lead right now but that will change over time. The high-speed connectivity that “the farm” has is either at or very close to the bandwidth that allowed jobs to move overseas.
BTW the “tea baggers” comment is juvenile as you acknowledged.
Not clear to me that wireless bandwidth has the physics to support the same load as wires. There’ve been articles about the last year or so (from memory, no links, alas) that wired is leading. There’s only so much spectrum, and as it is, we’re irradiating our environment with unknown consequences. Therefore, I expect that the broadband revolution will only go where wires go; exurbs at most. Unless the Gummint pays (as it did for TVA and Interstates and other Socialist endeavors), the private sector will opt out.
It doesn’t, which is why we’ll devote more and more bandwidth to the problem. Some users can only be reached with wireless so its application is inevitable.
This is what is happening in Australia – fibre to 93% of homes, businesses etc, with the remaining 7% covered by wireless or satellite. Our Federal Government is building it. https://www.nbn.gov.au/content/what-national-broadband-network
My whole darn rural state is getting wired for low-cost gigabit fibre/4g LTE thanks to some clever grant-nabbing by our Senators. It’ll give us an enormous competitive advantage, and other states will need to follow suit. http://vermontel.com/wireless-open-world
What about arbitrary bandwidth caps by ISPs and pay-per-kb plans instead of unlimited plans? As the wireless data carriers go, so can the wired carriers.
Bandwidth caps are a way for ISPs to accomplish two ends: 1) to control bandwidth consumption of their most unruly customers who actually do cost 10-100 times as much to serve as the median, and; 2) to increase mean revenue (and profit) per subscriber. My take on this trend is that it will be relatively short-lived primarily because bandwidth costs are always dropping which means profit margins for bit-schlepping are always increasing in any case, weakening the case for the ISPs. That means their argument is the best it will probably ever be RIGHT NOW, which is why we hear so much bitching from them. But this too shall pass, with the next trend in competition probably being the removal of those very caps. Two to three years from now the landscape will look totally different, just as it looked very different 2-3 years ago.
— because bandwidth costs are always dropping
As the Pump and Dump stock brokers say, “past performance is no indication of future value”. In this case, what matters isn’t the historical back trend, but the physics of why it happened. If the physics no longer apply, neither does the trend. What’s the physics? I don’t see it as a corollary to Moore.
Then you aren’t looking. Wholesale bandwidth prices have been dropping 50 percent per year since the late 1990s. That’s FASTER than Moore’s Law. Any trend that continues for 12 years isn’t a fluke or an artifact of market manipulation. There is STILL dark fiber available, so that capital cost may never have to be incurred again. We still have new fibers to light at the same time we are increasing the effective bandwidth of existing fibers by 10-100 times. And that’s without any major technical advance in the last 8-10 years. We’re due just such an advance. I don’t see this trend changing in our lifetimes. To simply deny it because you haven’t done the numbers yourself seems shortsighted to me.
Ah, I wasn’t denying, I was asking what physics has driven down price/cost. And you answered; which answer reminds me of a column from some time ago about fiber to the home. At least where I live, never happened. There remains the dichotomy between wired and wireless capacity; again at the level of physics/engineering. Or do you believe that there is no dichotomy?
Put another way: “you don’t miss your water until the well runs dry”. That is, the cost of production of many extractive activities is near zero until it’s nearly all gone, just ask a Texas oilman. I wonder how close we’re getting to the limit of cheap additional capacity (again, at the physics/engineering level, not MBA) for either wired or wireless.
The bigger problem seems to be that in the majority of communities across the USA, there is little competition for high speed Internet. I’d wager that the overwhelming majority of Americans have at most two choices for an Internet connection that is fast and reliable enough to stream Netflix.
Netflix’s popularity (and therefore profit and therefore power) give the rest of us a fighting chance. Still, I expect companies like Comcast and AT&T to use all their power to fight Netflix in every way they can, first and foremost by leveraging their monopoly (or near-monopoly) status in most communities around the country.
I’ve written about this before. Look at the cost and profit structures of the cable companies. Their biggest cost is access fees for TV content. Their biggest profit comes from providing Internet service. In the long run they’ll want to minimize costs and maximize profits. While it will take a leap of faith to do so that will eventually come down to becoming pure ISPs and allowing Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and others to handle the content, perhaps with some participation from the ISPs as investors.
Look at the current bandwidth beef between Netflix, Level 3, and Comcast. Comcast wants to be paid in cash but right now Netflix stock is high which means it is cheaper for Netflix to pay in stock. We’ll shortly reach the point where that discussion happens. Say Netflix gives 15 percent ownership to the big ISPs (major telcos and cable companies — probably 10 companies in all) based on their subscriber bases or bandwidth shares. Maybe the number is 30 percent, I don’t know, but whatever it is that number would be high enough to tie the success of ISPs to the success of Netflix, simultaneously removing Netflix from any bandwidth caps. THIS WILL HAPPEN EVENTUALLY.
And when the cable companies become ISPs, devoting all their current video channels to IP, IT WILL INCREASE AVAILABLE BANDWIDTH BY 80X. Then there’s no looking back.
Bob, did I miss the column where you solved the “bufferbloat” problem: https://www.cringely.com/2011/01/2011-predictions-one-word-bufferbloat-or-is-that-two-words/ ?
I’d like to suggest that the ISP bandwidth limits are more to drive profit into their other services (phone service, cable, video on demand) by implementing barriers to the use of competing services (Netflix, Hulu, VoIP, etc). If you follow the money here, the profit/loss from those services is far higher than the cost of the extra bandwidth usage even today.
Brilliance for free; your parents must be a sweethraet and a certified genius.
As usual, there are privacy implications to this. If you watch Debbie Does Dallas by buying the DVD, only the DVD store clerk knows. If you watch it on broadcast, just possibly someone nearby is pointing TV detector van tech at you and knows. If you watch it on non-pay-per-view cable, nobody knows. If you watch it on Netflix, Netflix knows, and so does the FBI should they feel like asking Netflix via a National Security Letter.
If the ISPs locally cached the (say) 1000 most popular Netflix movies, they could save a whole lot of backbone bandwidth. Does this happen? I can imagine various roadblocks. Technical: Can this work with whatever encryption Netflix uses? Legal: Could the studios view this as unauthorized copying and sue, and do they want to? Financial: Who pays, Netflix or the ISP?
Netflix distributes through the Level 3 Content Distribution Network (CDN) which does just the sort of edge-caching you describe. So the 20-30 percent numbers we’ve been seeing are, for the most part, last mile statistics, NOT backbone numbers. But Netflix keeps good records, too, or they couldn’t help you pick up right where you left off. So if you are worried about your porn habit being exposed I’m afraid you’re already busted.
Quoting Bob, “So the 20-30 percent numbers we’ve been seeing are, for the most part, last mile statistics, NOT backbone numbers.”
Which I believe underscores my argument above. Now, I pay $20/month for AT&T DSL, and $8/month for a Netflix streaming-only account. Less than $30/month, and I get a ridiculous amount of on-demand content. What does AT&T offer for an additional $8/month that even comes close? I didn’t even bother to look. But I know with Comcast, in my area, the absolute most basic cable package I could get was about $20/month. And that’s barely more content than what I can get for free over the air!
My point is, I pay AT&T or Comcast to get access to a competing service that is better and cheaper. And by the graph you posted, about 25% of the ISP’s last-mile infrastructure is being used to deliver that competing service! Surely that infuriates the hell out of ISPs.
“Better and cheaper” are of course entirely dependent on your point of view. After thinking about this overnight, I think the most likely way for this to play out is the service providers will monopolize the freshest content, e.g. most recent movies and current season TV shows, and Netflix will become the “long tail” where you turn when you have the sudden urge to watch episode 37 of “Murphy Brown.”
Actually the Long Tail is where Netflix started. It might be where they end-up too but that is not yet certain. We’ve just entered a programming arms war with Netflix, YouTube, and probably iTunes and Hulu paying real money for first-run content rights. If Apple is smart they’ll be using their deepest-of-all pockets to put a content straightjacket on Hollywood, but I’m not sure they have the guts to spend the $6-9 billion it would take to disrupt the current system. YouTube is trying to lowball it at $100 million, which is pitiful. Netflix is ready to spend $2 billion. That and the fact that they are already writing checks (iTunes is not) will guarantee them a place at the table. Whoever wins it will shortly change video entertainment forever.
That’s all the more reason for the FCC to grab more bandwith from broadcasting networks. They are tired old horses.
Netflix is the way to go –
Just jumped on the netflix bandwagon in San Diego. The valuable is incredible and immediate access to so much back catalog material is video crack to me.
However the last mile seems not quite up to it–network problems can make things unwatchable. From a consumer perspective, the value is incredible so I expect this to become much worse. And I’m skeptical that Time Warner Cable is really that interested in being a dumb pipe.
There are lots of good technological solutions to the backbone problem (edge distribution being an obvious one), but what of the last mile (or if you’re on DSL the second-to-last mile)?
“I remember those downloads cost me $0.25 per gigabyte…”
Yikes. I’m sure I’m not the only person who downloaded the biggest version of each episode. Guess that’s one reason why we never saw a season 2?
Bob,
It was nice to see a new spin on an old idea of yours. I remember reading almost the exact same article years ago.
https://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2002/pulpit_20021128_000438.html
It took me awhile to hunt it down at the old PBS site and when I found it I couldn’t believe that it was almost 10 yrs. ago you said nearly exactly the same thing you’re predicting here.
Looking forward to reading the prediction again 10 years from now.
Thanks for looking it up. I remember that article, specifically for the P2P aspect. It’s something I wouldn’t go for then, and ten years later still wouldn’t.
But the fact that was ten years ago makes me realize I’ve been reading his articles for a damned long time. And by the looks of it I’m not alone.
[…] analysis by Cringley. Check it out here. This entry was posted in World News. Bookmark the permalink. ← Hello […]
From a less technical point of view, here is Internet bubble scam artist, Henry Blodget interviewing Netflix CEO Reed Hastings. Some interesting stuff.
https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-ceo-reed-hastings-interview-2011-4
Also of interest: how Netflix run their business is the in this powerpoint referenced in the article.
http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-management-presentation-2011#-128
Great week’s worth of articles Bob. Thanks!
[…] I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Netflix too big to fail? – interesting network usage data on video […]
Concerning content, Netflix just bought US and Canada distribution rights to Kevin Spacey’s show House OF Cards. Reed Hastings is a brilliant businessman. I don’t see him doing anything to slow growth, or missing opportunities to grow faster.
[…] already following in the footsteps of HBO and have started producing their own content. See this Netflix Article by Robert Cringely for […]
+1
I guess we just found out how Netflix has to deal with contract re-negotiation.
and there’s so little new stuff. I’m willing to pay the $1 on-demand for Zediva, though, and am using them much more (I have two small children and don’t go out to the movies).
Yes, me to. I agree…
That’s certainly an aspect of this evolution, Tim. Metadata can be used to assign to sources a reliability score, for example (there are many other techniques, too). Librarians had the advantage of operating on a much smaller database with mainly professional sources, though that doesn’t always make them more correct. Then there’s the information backscatter that afflicts you. That, too, has to be controlled in some fashion, probably through better targeted search results.
and there’s so little new stuff. I’m willing to pay the $1 on-demand for Zediva, though, and am using them much more (I have two small children and don’t go out to the movies).
Power supplies are usually optimized for high loads (i.e. 70%-90% maximum power output). So I wonder if they use power supplies that can even use the CPU at full-power
Exceedingly helpful bless you, It is my opinion your current subscribers would possibly want further well written articles such as this carry on the great effort.
abercrombie,abercrombie outlet,abercrombie uk…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Netflix too big to fail? – Cringely on technology[…]…
daron…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Netflix too big to fail? – Cringely on technology[…]…
netflix account free login…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Netflix too big to fail? – Cringely on technology[…]…
I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the structure of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or two images. Maybe you could space it out better?
It is appropriate time to make some plans for the longer term and it’s time to be happy. I’ve read this publish and if I may just I wish to recommend you some attention-grabbing issues or advice. Maybe you could write next articles referring to this article. I wish to read even more issues approximately it!
education uae
[…]that will be the end of this write-up. Right here youll find some web pages that we assume youll value, just click the hyperlinks over[…]
SOURCE OF INCOME
[…]although web-sites we backlink to beneath are considerably not connected to ours, we feel they may be essentially worth a go by way of, so possess a look[…]
Prp hair regeneration
[…]very couple of sites that take place to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly properly worth checking out[…]
premature ejaculation
[…]the time to study or go to the content material or web-sites we have linked to below the[…]
tempurpedic mattress protector
[…]usually posts some very intriguing stuff like this. If you are new to this site[…]