3 ms·
10Gbps isn't a lot in terms of total capacity or utilization but even a 100 extra kbps of burstable bandwidth/user can greatly improve the experience. It's the
by aroch 13y ago
10Gbps isn't a lot in terms of total capacity or utilization but even a 100 extra kbps of burstable bandwidth/user can greatly improve the experience. It's the difference between buffering every 30sec and watching with only minor stuttering. Also, bandwidth costs only go down/mbps as you get bigger. $6K/month is what you pay if you're a small business; Comcast or Verizon would get high-level pricing (puts their cost somewhere around ~$3.5K/mn). A 50Gbps commit with another 50Gbps at 95th percentile pricing would would cost them fractions of a cent per customer but would make people much happier.
Now they'll never to it because they'd rather keep that ~$25K.
- twoodfin 13y ago100Kbps/subscriber is around 200Gbps for Comcast. And that's just 100Kbps! Netflix is going to keep telling their customers they're getting a suboptimal HD experience (and they'll be right!) until the average stream gets somewhere near Blu-ray's ~20Mbps. Maybe half that if you think codecs are going to get better, but by then 4K will be winding down the pike. The point is that for Comcast and Verizon, there's no end in sight: A few more ports connected in a few more data centers isn't going to do more than make a few subscribers slightly happier for a few months.
- aroch 13y agoIt doesn't have to be dedicated, just bustable to a reasonably large number of subscribers at a time. Netflix will prefretch data and a small amount of burstable bandwidth goes a long way in viewing quality. This isn't about letting everyone stream SuperHD content at the same time, this is about relieving some pressure around the average bitrate (somewhere around 1900Kbps)