[94019] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Sat Jan 6 10:52:56 2007
In-Reply-To: <20070106151900.GA6242@dochas.stdlib.net>
Cc: Andrew Odlyzko <odlyzko@dtc.umn.edu>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 10:44:31 -0500
To: colm@stdlib.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 6, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:09:19AM -0600, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
>> 2. The question I don't understand is, why stream?
>
> There are other good reasons, but fundamentally; because of live
> telivision.
>
>> In these days, when a terabyte disk for consumer PCs is about to be
>> introduced, why bother with streaming? It is so much simpler to
>> download (at faster than real-time rates, if possible), and play it
>> back.
>
> That might be worse for download operators, because people may =20
> download
> an hour of video, and only watch 5 minutes :/
>
Our logs show that, for every 100 people who start to watch a stream, =20=
only 2 or 5 % watch over
30 minutes in one sitting, even for VOD where they presumably have =20
some interest in the movie up front, and
more more than 9% will watch all of VOD movie, even over multiple =20
viewings. This is also very consistent
with time, but I don't have any pretty plots handy. (Our cumulative =20
audience in 2006 was 2.74 million people, I have lots of statistics.)
So, from that standpoint, making a video file available for download =20
is wasting order of 90% of the bandwidth used
to download it.
Regards
Marshall
> --=20
> Colm MacC=E1rthaigh Public Key: colm=20
> +pgp@stdlib.net
