Report: Netflix Is An Internet Hog That's Only Getting Fatter
Report: Netflix Is An Internet Hog That's Only Getting Fatter
Posted 10/27/2011 at 10:18am
| by Brad Chacos
23
Comments
Print
The recent Netflix wackiness may have sent some subscribers running, but it wasn’t enough to keep Netflix from gobbling up the Net’s bandwidth for yet another quarter. A new report says the streaming media powerhouse accounted for roughly 33 percent of all peak downsteam traffic in that time frame – even after 800,000 subscribers left for greener pastures recently. As big a slice as that is, the number may only increase as ISPs bolster their series of tubes.
That’s because Netflix uses a rate-adaptive form of streaming, the Sandvine research firm reports in its Fall 2011 Global Internet Phenomena Report. You know how Netflix’s picture quality adjusts to offer the best quality based on your network connection? That would come into play more as infrastructure is increased.
“From a network engineering perspective, it means that when capacity is increased, adaptive video simply upshifts to a higher fidelity and fills the new capacity,” Sandvine says in its report. We doubt the change would be that dramatic, but we get the point. Sandvine reports that Netflix's peak bandwith usage has seen “a relative increase of more than 10% since spring.” Imagine how big that number could get if the pipes were widened and Netflix and its ilk only expanded/upgraded to fill them?
ISPs already shout and scream about Netflix’s never-sated hunger for more and more bandwidth; this report will only add fuel to the fire.
Image credit: RGBFilter.com
More like this
23
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
axiomatic
October 30, 2011 at 11:37am
Hmmmm the report calls Netflix a bandwidth hog? I see it differently. I see the US ISP's being lazy in deploying faster internet while the rest of the world laughs at us. Also, those US ISP's are taking in record profits.
If the problem is so bad why are tier three ISP's selling Netflix a connection to the internet? Or right, the report didn't think of that did it. It would rather paint Netflix as the problem.
newegg911
October 27, 2011 at 2:23pm
Normally I think companies can do what they want within the law, but I think different thinking applies to ISP because the wires they use go through public land.
Comcast does pretty much what they want around here. They are digging up my yard to put in new fiber right now. They never asked me and even if they did there probably isn't anything I could do about it. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want because they are a monopoly around here and people would raise holy hell if anything stopped them from getting their cable.
Carlidan
October 27, 2011 at 10:03pm
Where the hell do you live? Comcast can't just dig into your yard because they feel like it. Now if your talking about them putting fiber on public land, they usually need some kind of goverment approval.
jtrpop
October 27, 2011 at 1:42pm
I'm one of the 800,000 that left. Too bad poor streaming selection and no 1080p with 5.1 sound.
acidic
October 27, 2011 at 1:23pm
ive read many reports of netflix talking about how much bandwidth costs. nextflix themselves said that 1GB of bandwidth costs $0.01 so i dont see why our ISPs cry foul about caps and such. i pay $60 a month for 7.5mb down 768kbps up. yeah its over priced but id have to use 6TB of bandwidth per month to cost Time Warner the $60 i pay. its ludicrous
Carlidan
October 27, 2011 at 1:41pm
Geez that's pretty steep. I'm getting 10 down/ 1up. Well close enough. And I'm paying 29.99 a month with Time Warner and no data capping ATM. Crossing fingers they won't ever! I was with AT&T but left because of the cap restrictions.
xs0u1x
October 27, 2011 at 12:44pm
sandvine is also a huge seller of throttling hardware and software. any "report" they put out, to me has a certain smell of bias as in "you need to buy our products ASAP"
and if you look at the original report their figures were something like netflix was taking 4x the bandwith of bit torrent, so why again is it being throttled? netflix the new scapegoat for an isp's refusal to upgrade infrastructure instead of piracy? this report to me spells out that the consumers lose, again.
mhouston100
October 27, 2011 at 7:53pm
Ha ha exactly the point!
To me it just feeds more to the point that ISP's over extend themselves so massively, then cry poor when they are called out for it.
It's Vodafone Australia (for mobile) all over, they get cheaper and cheaper and offer more and more, then it all stops working and they say 'Oh well, we over extended' and the consumer ends up screwed in the end, locked into a contract with sub-par performance and no way to get out.
xs0u1x
October 27, 2011 at 5:51pm
Thank you Mr Chacos. and I'm a sir by the way. I do have to agree with the below poster, I look forward to your posts as well.
Roll Tide
October 27, 2011 at 12:43pm
Wait a Minute ISP are screaming about how we use our data? Cox (an ISP that incidentally provides on demand content) probably would not complain if the data requests however massive stop at their servers and never went out. They would generate more profit and could theoretically shape the data transmission forms and networks to where it suited their interests. Maybe providing higher bandwidth only to their servers and slower to sites like Netflix. Cox could then advertise 10 MB to all its premium services and quietly not mention it provides only 1.5 to other sites.
Chaco just wanted to say thanks your articles seem to be the most thought challenging.
genghiskhen
October 27, 2011 at 12:27pm
The problem is the advent of broadband brought about an ISP monopoly. Most of us can only choose from one broadband ISP. If your ISP throttles, caps, or spies, you can't take your business elsewhere. In the old days you could shop around for the best service or price.
Markitzero
October 27, 2011 at 10:48am
I think NetFlix is Ahead of the Times because there are alot of ISP but caps on stuff and I know from my Personal experiance that the only Broadband I can get in a Rural area is Wireless 5Mbps and soft caped at 75GB then after that there are 3 stages of throttling
stage 1 throttled to 2.5Mbps
Stage 2 throttled to 1.2Mbps
Stage 3 OFF
If we all have Networks speeds like Japn and even the UK then it may be better but right now with Big Broadband companies wanting to but in caps and then charge when you go over.
CalDrumr
October 27, 2011 at 12:26pm
I will not pay for throttled Internet. If I pay for 5 Mb, that's what I want. If I pay for 30 Mb, that's what I want. I am paying for it, and I want it 24-7. Caps make me sad, and with the sky-high prices for Internet and data services, they are not warranted.
Markitzero
October 28, 2011 at 3:04am
I don't like caps eaither but the only thing available in my area that has no cap is Dial-up and I was paying min. $80 1-2 years ago for a Dial-up connection because there was no Broadband available when I first moved up there I didn't know about my current ISP. i use to run a 10 person Game Server out of my house and a HTTP, FTP, VoIP, torrent"legal torrents",media, music server on a Gateway P4 2.0Ghz with Fedora Core 9
Shalbatana
October 27, 2011 at 10:45am
I have no problems with this. (strange to say that about netflix lately).
Honestly I'd even be able to look past the price increase and all that if they'd just fix the WII interface
Danthrax66
October 27, 2011 at 10:44am
ISPs can go fuck themselves I pay for the bandwidth I can use it how I want.
CalDrumr
October 27, 2011 at 12:28pm
Agreed. I don't know about you, but my Internet services is very expensive. I have a 20 Mbps connection with a 2 Mbps upload, and if I want to use all of that 22 Mbps every day, all day long, that is my right as a paying customer. Companies shouldn't be worried about how or why I use my bandwidth.
I Jedi
October 27, 2011 at 12:28pm
I can see your point of view, but your paying these ISPs to use their network, for which they can deny you service at anytime. There is no law or constitutional amendment in the U.S. that states a citizen is entitled to the Internet. In other words, its a privilege that the ISPs allow you to pay them money to use their network. It seems silly when I put it like that, yet this is the truth in how the law interprets it. In other words, if ISPs want you to pay $60 a month for 1 GB of data, they can certainly do that.
alexc
October 27, 2011 at 12:58pm
ISPs are not like any other busniess since most serving individuals see the benefit of being a local monopoly. People may have a choice between cable or DSL for reliable high speed internet, but not in all cases. Any business granted monopoly rights needs to serve the good of the public, and should be held to a higher standard by their local governments.
As far as there not being a law entitling people to use the internet, this isn't quite true either. The internet is a medium for speech, and while the federal government isn't required to provide internet access to everyone, law makers have been hesitant to pass legislation that would limit existing access to people. This is why the recording and movie industries are going straight to the ISPs instead of legislators to institute policies that would cut people's internet access that they deem are sharing copyrighted material. Even though this is an agreement with commercial companies this is a huge first amendment issue of a goverment allowed monopoly limiting the avenue's for one's speech.
I Jedi
October 27, 2011 at 4:11pm
"As far as there not being a law entitling people to use the internet, this isn't quite true either. The internet is a medium for speech," I can agree with you, to a point. The Internet may be a medium to free speech; however, it is not the only medium available. As you and I both know, libraries, operated by your favorite local and state government, offer, at least in my state, free Internet access to anyone who wishes to use it. That, right there, is how the problem, in my opinion, of free speech on the Internet is solved for those who cannot afford it. I stand by my opinion that having Internet in your home is a privilege, not a right.
I can understand what you mean when a company has a monopoly over an area or industry, that it ought to help serve the public's interest, but even a company has to turn a profit. In my area, the local trash company has a monopoly over, you guessed it, trash waste and disposal. In exchange, the local government made them guarantee that bills could arrive and not be paid in full until 90 days later. In my opinion, that seemed like a great deal, and a show on how local government can serve the communities interest; however, getting the trash taken away is not the same as being able to digitally download your next favorite music album. Local libraries continue to offer Internet access points for citizens who cannot pay for a personal connection into their own homes; therefore, everyone still has a voice on the Internet.
I suppose the point I am trying to get at is that the Internet is both a privilege and a freedoms right. It's a privilege to have it in your home, but it is a freedom right to be able to go to your local library, for free, and express and educate yourself.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy2 days 1 hour ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj2 days 1 hour ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E3 days 22 hours ago
