Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Netflix rules out Kiwi launch

Reply
Thread Tools

Netflix rules out Kiwi launch

 
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2011
On 30/11/2011 8:20 a.m., JohnO wrote:

>
> What is the status of AppleTV these days? That is a nice looking
> product, and the movie cost is about the same as renting. But at 30Gb
> for an HD movie download the current plans would kill it.
>
> As you say, Victor, there'd be no problem if the content was held
> locally. Note that partner ISPs of SkyTV exempt iSky traffic from
> their caps.


Precisely, the data caps aren't an issue and might even protect their
market.
But there is a lot of competition from other transmission modes with
TVNZ and Sky teaming up on pay dvb-t, and Kordia/Orcon. Both of which
are SOEs.
The Netflix source was ex ihug and probably didn't want to give any
plans away. Netflix has to buy regional distribution rights for content
and that might not be easy or cheap
This will all get resolved by some other player if its not Netflix, and
probably before UFB is rolled out, but they will have to offer a deal to
the carrier in return for un-metered access.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
greybeard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2011

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Your Name)
| wrote:
|
| >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Frank
Williams
| ><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| >
| >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...says_no_to_nz/
| >
| >That was in the NZ Herald either last week or on Saturday. The reason
| >they've pulled out is the idiotic data caps and hopeless "broadband"
| >network here in New Zealand ... something we all already knew about.

|
| National have done a go slow on UF Broadband, and done nothing about
| gaining additional bandwidth in and out of New Zealand.
|
| Every day brings yet another example of a National Party failure . . .
|

Flip-flop richbot.
Labour have been condemning the UFB network since it was proposed.
Waste of money. Now you want it yesterday.
Grow up. Get lost, you and your dirty smear campaign have been rejected
by the NZ public. Disappear.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Your Name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>, JohnO
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 8:21=A0pm, victor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (E-Mail Removed) (Your Name)
> > > wrote:
> > >> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Frank Williams
> > >> <(E-Mail Removed)> =A0wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...says_no_to_nz/
> > >>
> > >> That was in the NZ Herald either last week or on Saturday. The reason
> > >> they've pulled out is the idiotic data caps and hopeless "broadband"
> > >> network here in New Zealand ... something we all already knew about. =
> > >>
> > >
> > > National have done a go slow on UF Broadband, and done nothing about
> > > gaining additional bandwidth in and out of New Zealand.
> > >
> > > Every day brings yet another example of a National Party failure . . .

> >
> > What *******s, netflix doesn't need any extra international bandwidth
> > capacity, it can all be cached in NZ.
> > Most places netflix is available don't have fiber, and the service could
> > easily be delivered over Telecoms FTTN network.
> > Telecom would just have to partner with Netflix to allow Netflix content
> > through un metered.
> > It is all completely solvable without government intervention.
> > The problem is the copyright licensing.

>
> What is the status of AppleTV these days? That is a nice looking
> product, and the movie cost is about the same as renting. But at 30Gb
> for an HD movie download the current plans would kill it.
>
> As you say, Victor, there'd be no problem if the content was held
> locally. Note that partner ISPs of SkyTV exempt iSky traffic from
> their caps.


Having separate servers all over the planet is expensive and inefficient.
Even a proxy server / cache system isn't a good answer for such massive
file sizes.

The problem is caused by many factors, including NZ's idiotic data caps /
monitoring and hopeless "broadband" network, and the rights.

Yes, these problems are "solved" or ignored by some other companies -
local TV channels have their various Internet-based TV show services due
to the localised nature of the shows (and TV shows are usually shorter
than films anyway) and Apple has and is negotiating rights for music,
books, films, etc.

One of the biggest problems is simply the fact that the market size
doesn't make it worthwhile. The best way to solve that would be to bundle
Australia and New Zealand into one market, but that would still require
bigger / no data caps and free cross-Tasman data.
 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
On Nov 30, 1:20*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Your Name) wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, JohnO
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 8:21=A0pm, victor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (E-Mail Removed) (Your Name)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >, Frank Williams
> > > >> <(E-Mail Removed)> =A0wrote:

>
> > > >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...says_no_to_nz/

>
> > > >> That was in the NZ Herald either last week or on Saturday. The reason
> > > >> they've pulled out is the idiotic data caps and hopeless "broadband"
> > > >> network here in New Zealand ... something we all already knew about. =
> > > >>

>
> > > > National have done a go slow on UF Broadband, and done nothing about
> > > > gaining additional bandwidth in and out of New Zealand.

>
> > > > Every day brings yet another example of a National Party failure . .. .

>
> > > What *******s, netflix doesn't need any extra international bandwidth
> > > capacity, it can all be cached in NZ.
> > > Most places netflix is available don't have fiber, and the service could
> > > easily be delivered over Telecoms FTTN network.
> > > Telecom would just have to partner with Netflix to allow Netflix content
> > > through un metered.
> > > It is all completely solvable without government intervention.
> > > The problem is the copyright licensing.

>
> > What is the status of AppleTV these days? That is a nice looking
> > product, and the movie cost is about the same as renting. But at 30Gb
> > for an HD movie download the current plans would kill it.

>
> > As you say, Victor, there'd be no problem if the content was held
> > locally. Note that partner ISPs of SkyTV exempt iSky traffic from
> > their caps.

>
> Having separate servers all over the planet is expensive and inefficient.


Well that depends what your constraints and major cost components are.
The constraint is international bandwidth, not storage. Storage is
extraordinarily cheap these days - the hard drive storage cost of an
HD movie would be more than recovered by the revenue from one single
download.

> Even a proxy server / cache system isn't a good answer for such massive
> file sizes.


Why not. 10,000 HD movies would only be in the hundreds of terabytes
range - that's nothing special these days. What would be horrendous
would be the effect of thousands of locals concurrently streaming HD
movies across the international links. Far better to cache them on a
local proxy so at every movie would only ever have to be transferred
once. They could pre-load the cache with a selection of popular and
new release movies from hard media to further reduce the start-up
load.
>
> The problem is caused by many factors, including NZ's idiotic data caps /
> monitoring and hopeless "broadband" network, and the rights.
>
> Yes, these problems are "solved" or ignored by some other companies -
> local TV channels have their various Internet-based TV show services due
> to the localised nature of the shows (and TV shows are usually shorter
> than films anyway) and Apple has and is negotiating rights for music,
> books, films, etc.
>
> One of the biggest problems is simply the fact that the market size
> doesn't make it worthwhile. The best way to solve that would be to bundle
> Australia and New Zealand into one market, but that would still require
> bigger / no data caps and free cross-Tasman data.


 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
On 30/11/2011 1:20 p.m., Your Name wrote:

>
> Having separate servers all over the planet is expensive and inefficient.
> Even a proxy server / cache system isn't a good answer for such massive
> file sizes.


Akamai have cache servers all over the planet, so do Amazon and Google,
the amount of data to be cached for all the movies ever put on DVD is
pathetically small, especially in streaming formats.
Youtube doesn't have a problem with streaming HD.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich80105@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:43:59 +1300, victor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 30/11/2011 8:20 a.m., JohnO wrote:
>
>>
>> What is the status of AppleTV these days? That is a nice looking
>> product, and the movie cost is about the same as renting. But at 30Gb
>> for an HD movie download the current plans would kill it.
>>
>> As you say, Victor, there'd be no problem if the content was held
>> locally. Note that partner ISPs of SkyTV exempt iSky traffic from
>> their caps.

>
>Precisely, the data caps aren't an issue and might even protect their
>market.
>But there is a lot of competition from other transmission modes with
>TVNZ and Sky teaming up on pay dvb-t, and Kordia/Orcon. Both of which
>are SOEs.
>The Netflix source was ex ihug and probably didn't want to give any
>plans away. Netflix has to buy regional distribution rights for content
>and that might not be easy or cheap
>This will all get resolved by some other player if its not Netflix, and
>probably before UFB is rolled out, but they will have to offer a deal to
>the carrier in return for un-metered access.


Isn't UFB already rolled out? It was a promise by John Key in 2008!
 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
On Nov 30, 4:20*pm, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:43:59 +1300, victor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On 30/11/2011 8:20 a.m., JohnO wrote:

>
> >> What is the status of AppleTV these days? That is a nice looking
> >> product, and the movie cost is about the same as renting. But at 30Gb
> >> for an HD movie download the current plans would kill it.

>
> >> As you say, Victor, there'd be no problem if the content was held
> >> locally. Note that partner ISPs of SkyTV exempt iSky traffic from
> >> their caps.

>
> >Precisely, the data caps aren't an issue and might even protect their
> >market.
> >But there is a lot of competition from other transmission modes with
> >TVNZ and Sky teaming up on pay dvb-t, and Kordia/Orcon. Both of which
> >are SOEs.
> >The Netflix source was ex ihug and probably didn't want to give any
> >plans away. Netflix has to buy regional distribution rights for content
> >and that might not be easy or cheap
> >This will all get resolved by some other player if its not Netflix, and
> >probably before UFB is rolled out, but they will have to offer a deal to
> >the carrier in return for un-metered access.

>
> Isn't UFB already rolled out? It was a promise by John Key in 2008!


So?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Your Name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>, JohnO
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Nov 30, 1:20=A0pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Your Name) wrote:
> >
> > Having separate servers all over the planet is expensive and inefficient.

>
> Well that depends what your constraints and major cost components are.
> The constraint is international bandwidth, not storage. Storage is
> extraordinarily cheap these days - the hard drive storage cost of an
> HD movie would be more than recovered by the revenue from one single
> download.


Except it's not just the storage - you've also got to keep the servers
synced with the same files, system software, website, etc.

It's much simpler to have "two" servers - one live and one offline that is
being updated and tested. Once the updated one is ready, you flick a
switch and the servers are swapped (live -> offline and offline -> live).


> > Even a proxy server / cache system isn't a good answer for such massive
> > file sizes.

>
> Why not. 10,000 HD movies would only be in the hundreds of terabytes
> range - that's nothing special these days. What would be horrendous
> would be the effect of thousands of locals concurrently streaming HD
> movies across the international links. Far better to cache them on a
> local proxy so at every movie would only ever have to be transferred
> once. They could pre-load the cache with a selection of popular and
> new release movies from hard media to further reduce the start-up
> load.


It doesn't really solve anything - you've still got international data AND
extra servers, and even though each is less than going the whole hog one
way or the other, you've still got all the same problems and expenses.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Your Name
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> Isn't UFB already rolled out? It was a promise by John Key in 2008!


Yeah, right. Try 2028 ... by which time the technology they've wasted
millions of dollars installing will be completely out of date and need
replacing ... and guess who'll be paying for that (hint: it won't be the
greedy telecoms companies). :-\
 
Reply With Quote
 
victor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2011
On 30/11/2011 4:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)>, JohnO
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 30, 1:20=A0pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Your Name) wrote:
>>>
>>> Having separate servers all over the planet is expensive and inefficient.

>>
>> Well that depends what your constraints and major cost components are.
>> The constraint is international bandwidth, not storage. Storage is
>> extraordinarily cheap these days - the hard drive storage cost of an
>> HD movie would be more than recovered by the revenue from one single
>> download.

>
> Except it's not just the storage - you've also got to keep the servers
> synced with the same files, system software, website, etc.
>
> It's much simpler to have "two" servers - one live and one offline that is
> being updated and tested. Once the updated one is ready, you flick a
> switch and the servers are swapped (live -> offline and offline -> live).
>
>
>>> Even a proxy server / cache system isn't a good answer for such massive
>>> file sizes.

>>
>> Why not. 10,000 HD movies would only be in the hundreds of terabytes
>> range - that's nothing special these days. What would be horrendous
>> would be the effect of thousands of locals concurrently streaming HD
>> movies across the international links. Far better to cache them on a
>> local proxy so at every movie would only ever have to be transferred
>> once. They could pre-load the cache with a selection of popular and
>> new release movies from hard media to further reduce the start-up
>> load.

>
> It doesn't really solve anything - you've still got international data AND
> extra servers, and even though each is less than going the whole hog one
> way or the other, you've still got all the same problems and expenses.


Your switch flicking system sounds a bit primitive compared to the
actual process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_...very_to_a_user

There is nothing new required, Netflix and Hulu use Akamai and other
content delivery networks that are already present in NZ.
If Netflix doesn't deliver the on demand content, others will, and the
growth of existing CDNs in NZ datacenters will be incremental based on
demand.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-broa...kamai-aw-98072

Akamai reports that high speed broadband has gone from 2% of connections
to 15% in 2011, without UFB fiber
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
anyone using kiwi syslog? jcharth@hotmail.com Cisco 3 10-20-2005 07:02 PM
Kiwi Syslog Someone Cisco 2 10-13-2005 05:57 AM
rules for Cisco PIX 525 firewall rules KAS Cisco 2 10-02-2005 07:12 PM
Kiwi Alpha Omega Jim Computer Support 9 12-09-2004 04:12 AM
New Zealand Rules the Oscars...!! ...(a great day for Kiwi film) Max Christoffersen DVD Video 4 03-06-2004 07:09 PM



Advertisments