Netflix rules out Kiwi launch

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Frank Williams, Nov 29, 2011.

    1. Advertising

  1. Frank Williams

    Your Name Guest

    In article <>, Frank Williams
    <> wrote:

    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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. :-(
    Your Name, Nov 29, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  2. Frank Williams

    Donchano Guest

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:28:05 +1300, Frank Williams
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_says_no_to_nz/


    Netflix rules out Kiwi launch

    Broadband is crap, can't get the rights

    By Natalie Apostolou • Get more from this author

    Posted in Business, 28th November 2011 21:33 GMT

    Netflix has rejected New Zealand as a potential international launch
    spot because of low internet data caps and content rights issues.

    Attending the ITEX business tech summit in Auckland, New Zealand,
    Netflix VP of product innovation Brent Ayrey told local media that
    Netflix had no intention of launching in New Zealand.

    Ayrey said that by next year the average US Netflix customer would
    need a data cap of one terabyte a month, adding that New Zealand ISPs
    do not currently offer those kinds of data caps.

    "Generally when we look at potential markets, metered broadband is a
    deterrent,” expat Kiwi Ayrey said.

    New Zealand's broadband infrastructure was also an issue for Netflix
    and he raised concerns about its capacity to handle Netflix traffic,
    which currently accounts for 33 percent of all downstream internet
    traffic in the US.

    “The way we think about our international opportunities is that it’s a
    little bit tactical in terms of the content we can access, and then
    it’s about broadband connectivity.

    "It's really a function of do people watch TV? Do we have the content?
    Does the internet infrastructure work? The answer for at least the
    last question for New Zealanders is no."

    In June Netflix founder Reed Hastings said that the Asia Pacific would
    be a very important zone in its international expansion plans. Since
    then speculation about where and when the video streamer would emerge
    has waxed and waned with its share price.

    Netflix has opened in Canada and Latin American and last week raised
    $US400m in fresh capital ahead of launching into the UK market in
    2012.

    "Over the next couple of years we have to go country by country by
    country by country around the globe," Hastings said earlier in the
    year.
    Donchano, Nov 29, 2011
    #3
  3. Frank Williams

    Guest

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Frank Williams
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 . . .
    , Nov 29, 2011
    #4
  4. Frank Williams

    victor Guest

    On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., wrote:
    > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article<>, Frank Williams
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 bollocks, 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.
    victor, Nov 29, 2011
    #5
  5. On Nov 29, 8:21 pm, victor <> wrote:
    > On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> In article<>, Frank Williams
    > >> <>  wrote:

    >
    > >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 bollocks, 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.


    You are aware that at the mention of netflic and 'fibre', you stepped
    up into the realm of "advanced technical skills" insofar as rich-bot
    in concerned?

    Rich-bot is, afterall, the person who cant click on a cached Google
    search result or even get a YouTube link to work, and thinks doing the
    former is "advanced technical skills".
    misanthropic_curmudgeon, Nov 29, 2011
    #6
  6. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    On Nov 29, 8:02 pm, wrote:
    > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, Frank Williams
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 . . .


    Speaking of failure, what did the public think of Labour in the
    election, Dickbot?
    JohnO, Nov 29, 2011
    #7
  7. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    On Nov 29, 8:21 pm, victor <> wrote:
    > On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> In article<>, Frank Williams
    > >> <>  wrote:

    >
    > >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 bollocks, 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.
    JohnO, Nov 29, 2011
    #8
  8. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    On Nov 29, 8:21 pm, victor <> wrote:
    > On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> In article<>, Frank Williams
    > >> <>  wrote:

    >
    > >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 bollocks, netflix doesn't need any extra international bandwidth
    > capacity, it can all be cached in NZ.


    Yeah - they'd just need a local proxy server. Easy.

    > 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.
    JohnO, Nov 29, 2011
    #9
  9. Frank Williams

    Liberty Guest

    On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:17:39 -0800 (PST), JohnO <>
    wrote:

    >On Nov 29, 8:02 pm, wrote:
    >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>, Frank Williams
    >> ><> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 . . .

    >
    >Speaking of failure, what did the public think of Labour in the
    >election, Dickbot?



    Lobour supporters didn't think a lot. Mostly ran off to Winny the
    poo and the Greens.
    Now Peters and the Greens have a grand delusion they are popular.
    Liberty, Nov 29, 2011
    #10
  10. Frank Williams

    victor Guest

    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.
    victor, Nov 29, 2011
    #11
  11. Frank Williams

    greybeard Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    | wrote:
    |
    | >In article <>, Frank
    Williams
    | ><> wrote:
    | >
    | >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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.
    greybeard, Nov 29, 2011
    #12
  12. Frank Williams

    Your Name Guest

    In article
    <>, JohnO
    <> wrote:
    > On Nov 29, 8:21=A0pm, victor <> wrote:
    > > On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., wrote:
    > > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    > > > wrote:
    > > >> In article<>, Frank Williams
    > > >> <> =A0wrote:
    > > >>>
    > > >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 bollocks, 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.
    Your Name, Nov 30, 2011
    #13
  13. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    On Nov 30, 1:20 pm, (Your Name) wrote:
    > In article
    > <>, JohnO
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > On Nov 29, 8:21=A0pm, victor <> wrote:
    > > > On 29/11/2011 8:02 p.m., wrote:
    > > > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:12:33 +1300, (Your Name)
    > > > > wrote:
    > > > >> In article<>, Frank Williams
    > > > >> <> =A0wrote:

    >
    > > > >>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/28/netflix_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 bollocks, 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.
    JohnO, Nov 30, 2011
    #14
  14. Frank Williams

    victor Guest

    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.
    victor, Nov 30, 2011
    #15
  15. Frank Williams

    Guest

    On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:43:59 +1300, victor <> 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!
    , Nov 30, 2011
    #16
  16. Frank Williams

    JohnO Guest

    On Nov 30, 4:20 pm, wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:43:59 +1300, victor <> 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?
    JohnO, Nov 30, 2011
    #17
  17. Frank Williams

    Your Name Guest

    In article
    <>, JohnO
    <> wrote:

    > On Nov 30, 1:20=A0pm, (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 Name, Nov 30, 2011
    #18
  18. Frank Williams

    Your Name Guest

    In article <>,
    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). :-\
    Your Name, Nov 30, 2011
    #19
  19. Frank Williams

    victor Guest

    On 30/11/2011 4:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
    > In article
    > <>, JohnO
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Nov 30, 1:20=A0pm, (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_Technologies#Content_delivery_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-broadband-better-australia-akamai-aw-98072

    Akamai reports that high speed broadband has gone from 2% of connections
    to 15% in 2011, without UFB fiber
    victor, Nov 30, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. KAS
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    5,592
  2. Someone

    Kiwi Syslog

    Someone, Oct 6, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,975
    jdsal
    Oct 13, 2005
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    587
    Rod Dorman
    Oct 20, 2005
  4. Jim

    Kiwi Alpha Omega

    Jim, Dec 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    566
    Duck ducking
    Dec 9, 2004
  5. Max Christoffersen
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    376
    Mark Spatny
    Mar 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page