Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company

Leigh Porter leigh.porter at
Thu May 19 09:53:35 UTC 2011

> From: Rick Astley [mailto:jnanog at]
> I think most the points made here are valid about why it isn't an easy
> problem to solve with multicast.
> Lets say for instance they had a multicast stream that sent the most
> popular
> content (which to Randy's point may not cover much) and 48 hours of
> that
> stream was cached locally on the CPE. What is the additional cost to
> expand
> each of these CPE's to handle this? Will it be HD or SD or both? Are
> people
> willing to Sacrafice their Xbox and PS3 disk space? Does the $60 Roku
> become
> the $400 Roku? Does securing all the content then become more
> difficult?
> What is the hard drive failure rate of these devices with them
> constantly
> writing to disk?
> What incentive do users have to to shell out the money for a device
> that
> will handle this caching? Multicasting this type of content seems to
> create
> more problems than it solves.

Lots of people already cache multicast streams to disk at home. I have a Humax digital TV cache (PVR ;-) that caches HD and SD content for me automatically. 

Doing the same over a network is not that much more of a jump really. My Humax box already has Ethernet to my home network, grabbing a multicast feed is no more than a software feature.

So in a way people already pay to do just this. 

Indeed, in the UK, SKY offer a movies service which I believe you can cache locally if you have a SKY+ thing. So, SKY do it now and people pay for it.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit 

More information about the NANOG mailing list