Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk
Thu May 26 09:20:26 UTC 2011
> No, we're pretty sure you're wrong there, probably because you're
> purposely ignoring our *specific* characterization of the thing which
> was actually done.
I disagreed with two statements:-
> > On the engineering side, _impossible_. Modern satellite
> > feeds of NTSC (analog) TV signals use compressed digital
> > representations of only the image portion of each 'field'
> > of the video stream
With my Captain Obvious hat on I said digital systems can carry such
data. The case where some cable companies interfere with the original
broadcasters data doesn't demonstrate it is impossible, they don't
affect the quoted satellite case nor others such as DTT
> > On the financial side, it is trivial.
I don't disagree with the cable cases quoted by others, they
demonstrate why I disagreed that it's financially trivial.
Of course I'm wrong, it is financially trivial as they would carry it
if you paid them. It's just highly unlikely to be financially viable
> You can't really guarantee that random things injected into a transport
> stream mux at the send end will make it to the receive end; everyone in
> the transport path very likely thinks they're entitled to pull the
> separate program streams out and fiddle with them however they like --
> Hell: local cablecos *reencode* the local station HD signals to compress
> them further.
Yes, that was the case with analogue too, they just hadn't found
someone to sell the data to back then. Cable companies will mess with
anything including netflix.
In our case we sold VBI data so I coudln't make a viable case to offer
a USENET service.
More information about the NANOG