4 ms·

It would be nice/interesting to have a Netflix appliance locally in the home network which cached content that was expected to be viewed (next episode of a seri

It would be nice/interesting to have a Netflix appliance locally in the home network which cached content that was expected to be viewed (next episode of a series, suggestions, promoted shows) along with neighborhood peering to keep as much of the traffic along the edge as possible (i'm not sure where ISPs measure bandwidth if you are connected to another node connected to the same local hub). OCA seems like a great model for static content, but I wonder if it supports live streaming content as well. When I spoke with Limelight several years ago, they had a reasonably nice model for fanning out streams hierarchically so a single feed could be fanned out very widely late at the last mile.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gruez 7y ago
>When I spoke with Limelight several years ago, they had a reasonably nice model for fanning out streams hierarchically so a single feed could be fanned out very widely late at the last mile. So... multicast?
notduncansmith 7y ago
One of my back burner ideas is a “home WiFi router with apps”, and this type of caching/peering is precisely what I’d hope to enable.
- rkeene2 7y ago
  I started building something like this at one point and called it AppBox [0], to make installing apps on the device similar to installing apps on a server. I think Docker took over this role. [0] http://appbox.rkeene.org/ http://appbox.rkeene.org/
wmf 7y ago
Upstream traffic from the home (especially in DOCSIS) causes more congestion than downstream traffic from a CDN so CDNs really are better than P2P today.
- bronco21016 7y ago
  What is it about the upstream that causes more congestion? And as you say "especially in DOCSIS"? I'm not aware of anything with DOCSIS that requires the up-speed to be so low. It's just a matter of the cable ISPs not using as many channels for up-speed because on average a residential connection doesn't NEED a ton of up-speed. Now if they're just not building out their networks to have a lot of up-speed bandwidth at the node level then that's another discussion. It really seems to me that much of this content is likely consumed by many households within a node. It does seem kinda foolish that it's streamed multiple times to multiple residences within a neighborhood when the content could easily live somewhere on that node. I guess it just comes down to what is cheaper? Bandwidth or storage? Seems they're deciding it's bandwidth which makes one question why we need data caps on residential broadband.
  - wmf 7y ago
    Due to the frequency split there are fewer upstream channels available and changing that would require replacing all the filters. Downstream bandwidth inside the ISP is definitely cheaper than anything.
    - bronco21016 7y ago
      But my point still stands. That was a design decision. There is nothing technically stopping them from changing it if they felt they could ease the strain on their downstream bandwidth by using more localized caching and even P2P schemes. In the end it just further highlights that downstream bandwidth is cheap if they don’t mind sending 20 copies of Stranger Things in 4K down the pipe to a single node covering a neighborhood. So why the data caps?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gruez 7y ago

>When I spoke with Limelight several years ago, they had a reasonably nice model for fanning out streams hierarchically so a single feed could be fanned out very widely late at the last mile. So... multicast?

notduncansmith 7y ago

One of my back burner ideas is a “home WiFi router with apps”, and this type of caching/peering is precisely what I’d hope to enable.

rkeene2 7y ago
I started building something like this at one point and called it AppBox [0], to make installing apps on the device similar to installing apps on a server. I think Docker took over this role. [0] http://appbox.rkeene.org/ http://appbox.rkeene.org/

wmf 7y ago

Upstream traffic from the home (especially in DOCSIS) causes more congestion than downstream traffic from a CDN so CDNs really are better than P2P today.

bronco21016 7y ago
What is it about the upstream that causes more congestion? And as you say "especially in DOCSIS"? I'm not aware of anything with DOCSIS that requires the up-speed to be so low. It's just a matter of the cable ISPs not using as many channels for up-speed because on average a residential connection doesn't NEED a ton of up-speed. Now if they're just not building out their networks to have a lot of up-speed bandwidth at the node level then that's another discussion. It really seems to me that much of this content is likely consumed by many households within a node. It does seem kinda foolish that it's streamed multiple times to multiple residences within a neighborhood when the content could easily live somewhere on that node. I guess it just comes down to what is cheaper? Bandwidth or storage? Seems they're deciding it's bandwidth which makes one question why we need data caps on residential broadband.
- wmf 7y ago
  Due to the frequency split there are fewer upstream channels available and changing that would require replacing all the filters. Downstream bandwidth inside the ISP is definitely cheaper than anything.
  - bronco21016 7y ago
    But my point still stands. That was a design decision. There is nothing technically stopping them from changing it if they felt they could ease the strain on their downstream bandwidth by using more localized caching and even P2P schemes. In the end it just further highlights that downstream bandwidth is cheap if they don’t mind sending 20 copies of Stranger Things in 4K down the pipe to a single node covering a neighborhood. So why the data caps?