Google to bid on Sunday Ticket? (link inside)

[GG]

Another sign that the technologyis ready. The number of unique viewers of the Superbowl are 50% greater than the number of Sunday Ticket subscribers. And those 3.1 million were all watching one game, not spread out over their choice of several games at one time.

 

There is so much wrong everyone in this.

 

I don't want to go though this all and have an argument with you so ill just correct a few things and move on.

 

1) Netflix does not account for a quarter of Internet traffic. Not even remotely close. That was a meme that was spread around. Falsely. They have a large percentage of last mile traffic. Which is the traffic received from local data centers where Netflix has cached their programming. All of it being duplicate content. Its not real traffic. Its cached copies. They actually did this because they would be crashing every 10 minutes if they didnt. Problem is, you can't cache live programming. The fact that you don't know this and then tell me I don't know how Internet video is distributed is hilarious. I've programmed and networked more in a year than you have probably in your life. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing.

 

2) I said he deserved the start MORE SO than Kolb. Not that I wanted him to start or that he deserved to. I wanted EJ to start and I think EJ deserved to start.

 

3) Great. So now all we have to do is go buy a media player, buy the service, buy a splitter, perhaps an adapater, oh and pay for DirecTV as well if we want true live programming of other shows. That's simpler than just keeping it with DirecTV for sure.

 

Just the basic fact that you don't differentiate between cached and stored speaks volumes. And if you do want to get technical about it, the downstream traffic is the important measurement here, because most broadcast is one way traffic, so for the purposes of sending video over the internet, the downstream portion is the important one for video consumption.

 

Of course now you're saying that having a distributed server architecture is what enables Netflix to offer seamless HD feeds, but somehow that won't work for a live feed? As if Google won't buffer the live feed for about 30 seconds to 1 minute to ensure quality delivery.

 

(PS, I know the stuff without copying nearly every word of a Forbes article)

 

At the very least you should site the source you plagiarize

Edited August 22, 2013 by GG

[microscopes]

Another sign that the technology is ready. The number of unique viewers of the Superbowl are 50% greater than the number of Sunday Ticket subscribers. And those 3.1 million were all watching one game, not spread out over their choice of several games at one time.

 

1) DirecTV has over 2 million Ticket subscribers and is closing in on : million last time I checked. Not sure where you got that 50% stat from.

 

2) what are you talking about 3.1 mil people. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

Another sign that the technology is ready. The number of unique viewers of the Superbowl are 50% greater than the number of Sunday Ticket subscribers. And those 3.1 million were all watching one game, not spread out over their choice of several games at one time.

 

 

 

Just the basic fact that you don't differentiate between cached and stored speaks volumes.

 

(PS, I know the stuff without copying every word of an incorrect Forbes article)

 

At the very least you should site the source you plagiarize

 

Haven't even read the article. I can't open links on my work phone. I did read another article about this over a year ago though.

 

PS, cached means stored. *eyeroll*

 

Edit: just opened the article on my laptop and I didn't plagiarize anything from there. We have the same basic idea because we're both right.

 

a cache (/ˈkæʃ/ kash)[1] is a component that transparently stores data so that future requests for that data can be served faster.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_(computing)

 

How do you not know this stuff?

 

Edited August 22, 2013 by microscopes

[Just Jack]

 

 

So do you not watch any live programming?

 

This is a great option for people who don't.

 

I watch live stuff, either OTA or through the PlayOn/Roku setup.

[microscopes]

 

 

I watch live stuff, either OTA or through the PlayOn/Roku setup.

 

Gotcha.

[GG]

1) DirecTV has over 2 million Ticket subscribers and is closing in on : million last time I checked. Not sure where you got that 50% stat from.

 

2) what are you talking about 3.1 mil people. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

 

 

Haven't even read the article. I can't open links on my work phone. I did read another article about this over a year ago though.

 

PS, cached means stored. *eyeroll*

 

Edit: just opened the article on my laptop and I didn't plagiarize anything from there. We have the same basic idea because we're both right.

 

a cache (/ˈkæʃ/ kash)[1] is a component that transparently stores data so that future requests for that data can be served faster.

 

http://en.m.wikipedi...ache_(computing)

 

How do you not know this stuff?

 

50% greater than 2 million is 3 million, which is the audience that watched the Superbowl online. Check your math.

 

Netflix doesn't just cache the data at the data centers. It stores it. The cached part is the "memory" portion of storage that guesses which content will be accessed more frequently for faster retrieval. Not everything is cached because it's a different retrieval process from the storage devices.

 

So again, how would Google not efficiently distribute every NFL game, especially if it decides to outfit 10 data centers with solid state drives to buffer the live feed for 30 seconds (which is about the delay I get between an OTA broadcast and DTV broadcast of the same game?)

 

And I know the stuff enough not to ask Jack how he would get live TV on a TV set, because it was readily obvious to someone who knows the stuff.

[microscopes]

Of course now you're saying that having a distributed server architecture is what enables Netflix to offer seamless HD feeds, but somehow that won't work for a live feed? As if Google won't buffer the live feed for about 30 seconds to 1 minute to ensure quality delivery.

 

That's because you don't understand how large bandwidth content is delivered.

 

Do you know why YouTube has buffering issues and advertisers are at their neck about it? Do you know why Google, try as they may, and having thrown millions at the problem STILL hasn't completely eradicated it? Of course you don't.

 

And no, it wouldn't work for a live feed. Even delaying by a minute wouldn't give enough time for a data center (farm) to pull and push that massive load. Especially considering that Netflix is caching at those farms because they know the probability that thousands of people in that district pulls that same media at the same time is low. 5000 people in San Fransisco aren't going to be watching The Breakfast Club at the same exact time in the same exact spot of the movie etc.

 

The same can't be said with live programming.

 

Of course, they could have a technical breakthrough before then. I'm guessing we would see it on YouTube first however.

 

50% greater than 2 million is 3 million, which is the audience that watched the Superbowl online. Check your math.

 

Oh I misread your post. Gotcha

 

Post the link that shows 3.1 mil watched online. I'm curious to see what platforms they used.

 

Netflix doesn't just cache the data at the data centers. It stores it. The cached part is the "memory" portion of storage that guesses which content will be accessed more frequently for faster retrieval. Not everything is cached because it's a different retrieval process from the storage devices.

 

That's not true. If they were storing it, there costs would skyrocket. They use transitional caching which allows them to give at any moment the programming that a particular district is most likely to pull. Ever wonder why some movies and shows load quicker than others on Netflix? There's your answer.

 

So again, how would Google not efficiently distribute every NFL game, especially if it decides to outfit 10 data centers with solid state drives to buffer the live feed for 30 seconds (which is about the delay I get between an OTA broadcast and DTV broadcast of the same game?)

 

And I know the stuff enough not to ask Jack how he would get live TV on a TV set, because it was readily obvious to someone who knows the stuff.

 

I didn't ask Jack that. You need to start actually READING what I'm writing and not just making things up.

 

Buffering is the wrong word. But no, a delay would do little to help THAT particular issue.

Edited August 22, 2013 by microscopes

[GG]

That's because you don't understand how large bandwidth content is delivered.

 

Do you know why YouTube has buffering issues and advertisers are at their neck about it? Do you know why Google, try as they may, and having thrown millions at the problem STILL hasn't completely eradicated it? Of course you don't.

 

And no, it wouldn't work for a live feed. Even delaying by a minute wouldn't give enough time for a data center (farm) to pull and push that massive load. Especially considering that Netflix is caching at those farms because they know the probability that thousands of people in that district pulls that same media at the same time is low. 5000 people in San Fransisco aren't going to be watching The Breakfast Club at the same exact time in the same exact spot of the movie etc.

 

The same can't be said with live programming.

 

Of course, they could have a technical breakthrough before then. I'm guessing we would see it on YouTube first however.

 

 

 

 

Oh I misread your post. Gotcha

 

Post the link that shows 3.1 mil watched online. I'm curious to see what platforms they used.

 

 

 

That's not true. If they were storing it, there costs would skyrocket. They use transitional caching which allows them to give at any moment the programming that a particular district is most likely to pull.

 

 

 

I didn't ask Jack that. You need to start actually READING what I'm writing and not just making things up.

 

Buffering is the wrong word. But no, a delay would do little to help that issue.

 

You didn't ask Jack how he watches live TV? ok, I guess we have a different interpretation of "So do you not watch any live programming?".

 

Yes, it would be buffering, distributing the servers and bowing down at the ISPs for the prime access. Big part of the Youtube buffering is that there's a pi$$ing match between Google & the ISPs about prioritizing content. Youtube rides on the regular internet because Google doesn't want to pay the AT&Ts, Verizons & Comcasts for priority access. Once they get to a commercial agreement, the Youtube buffering issues will miraculously disappear.

 

 

Speaking of not reading what people are posting ... the link to the SuperBowl online audience was in the post.

Edited August 22, 2013 by GG

[microscopes]

Oh. I get what you want. You just want to argue.

 

In that case, I tip my hat.

 

You are right, I am wrong.

 

I hope that makes you feel better. I really do.

[GG]

Yes I do feel better. Time for a nap.

[jimmy10]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[Luka]

Wow... so yea, you're all wrong. I think it is safe to say that, after securing an exclusive, multi year deal with Microsoft, that the NFL and it's content will be distributed in a number of ways beginning in the 2015 season. There won't be an exclusive TV distributor for Sunday Ticket this time around because I think that the NFL realizes that the money is in making a deal with everyone and it keeps all of their fans happy.

 

Microsoft got their piece of the pie to deliver content and an experience that they feel will drive sales of the Xbox One, Windows 8, Surface, etc. Seeing that the NFL dropped support of the PS3 this season, tells me that if Sony wants NFL content on the PS4, a similar amount of money will have to be paid to them for those privilages. And with Sony contemplating and negotiating an a la carte cable TV service (partnering with the likes of Viacom, Virgin, T-Mobile to deliver a propritary internet service is a start) I can't imagine the NFL is going to say "we already have a half billion from Microsoft, that's good enough."

 

Not to mention that, at this point, there is not going to be any one cable provider that will maximize delivery to every potential customer. Not even Directv can do it currently, because people's experiences with their service are all over the map, and there are some people that just can't get it because of trees, etc. And with my experience as a previous Directv customer, I could tell how far away a thunderstorm was by my Directv going out (usually about 5 minutes) and being in Florida, there were times that I was following along on the internet because I had no signal. One game I even had to fully listen to on WGR streaming.

 

So I think the NFL, once the Directv deal expires will be shopping out the Sunday Ticket package to all providers, just like they did with the NFL Network. They want to hit on all fronts, be it live TV or digital distribution. And the rumor of Google bidding on it (or wanting to) would go a long in supporting not only their Chromecast and Android platform, but this little project as well.

[microscopes]

Wow... so yea, you're all wrong. I think it is safe to say that, after securing an exclusive, multi year deal with Microsoft, that the NFL and it's content will be distributed in a number of ways beginning in the 2015 season. There won't be an exclusive TV distributor for Sunday Ticket this time around because I think that the NFL realizes that the money is in making a deal with everyone and it keeps all of their fans happy.

 

Microsoft got their piece of the pie to deliver content and an experience that they feel will drive sales of the Xbox One, Windows 8, Surface, etc. Seeing that the NFL dropped support of the PS3 this season, tells me that if Sony wants NFL content on the PS4, a similar amount of money will have to be paid to them for those privilages. And with Sony contemplating and negotiating an a la carte cable TV service (partnering with the likes of Viacom, Virgin, T-Mobile to deliver a propritary internet service is a start) I can't imagine the NFL is going to say "we already have a half billion from Microsoft, that's good enough."

 

Not to mention that, at this point, there is not going to be any one cable provider that will maximize delivery to every potential customer. Not even Directv can do it currently, because people's experiences with their service are all over the map, and there are some people that just can't get it because of trees, etc. And with my experience as a previous Directv customer, I could tell how far away a thunderstorm was by my Directv going out (usually about 5 minutes) and being in Florida, there were times that I was following along on the internet because I had no signal. One game I even had to fully listen to on WGR streaming.

 

So I think the NFL, once the Directv deal expires will be shopping out the Sunday Ticket package to all providers, just like they did with the NFL Network. They want to hit on all fronts, be it live TV or digital distribution. And the rumor of Google bidding on it (or wanting to) would go a long in supporting not only their Chromecast and Android platform, but this little project as well.

 

You're right.That's the only way I can see it.

 

No way the NFL gives sole rights to Google. It will be split non-exclusively.

 

I believe DirecTV pays $1 bill per season right now. Make it non-exclusive and sell the Sunday Ticket rights to any company who wants it for $150 mil per season. It is absolutely guaranteed that DirecTV, Time Warner, Dish, Cox, Charter, and Google would sign up. That's $900 mil right there and the viewership from your product is instantly quadrupled.

 

I'm not sure what the downfall of that would be. I'm sure there is one, It just isn't coming to mind.

Edited August 22, 2013 by microscopes

[26CornerBlitz]

You're right.That's the only way I can see it.

 

No way the NFL gives sole rights to Google. It will be split non-exclusively.

 

With a high enough bid, a provider like Google will require exclusivity and the NFL will certainly grant it as they have done through more than one term with DTV.

 

The NFL seems to favor exclusive deals such as this one: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/05/technology/mobile/verizon-nfl/index.html

Edited August 22, 2013 by 26CornerBlitz

[microscopes]

With a high enough bid, a provider like Google will require exclusivity and the NFL will certainly grant it as they have done through more than one term with DTV.

 

I really don't see that happening.

 

The NFL cares about money, but they also care about viewership. It's not just about the money they get from DirecTV. The more viewers they receive on Sunday Ticket means more viewers who are watching the commercials on CBS, and FOX. That leads to higher dollars for the NFL from CBS and Fox as well. It's a big circle.

[26CornerBlitz]

I really don't see that happening.

 

The NFL cares about money, but they also care about viewership. It's not just about the money they get from DirecTV. The more viewers they receive on Sunday Ticket means more viewers who are watching the commercials on CBS, and FOX. That leads to higher dollars for the NFL from CBS and Fox as well. It's a big circle.

 

Precedent says you're incorrect. But we'll see.

[microscopes]

Precedent says you're incorrect. But we'll see.

 

Actually precedent may indicate that I am correct. It is no secret that the NFL has been wanting non-exclusive programming for a while now.

[GG]

Precedent says you're incorrect. But we'll see.

 

[Luka]

You're right.That's the only way I can see it.

 

No way the NFL gives sole rights to Google. It will be split non-exclusively.

 

Seeing that the Directv deal was worth $4 billion in 2009, and Microsoft just paid a half billion to have some fancy overlays and fantasy tracking, I have to say that the NFL is looking at $1.5 billion AT LEAST for non-exclusive deals with cable providers. And considering how much Sunday Ticket contributed to driving the install base for Directv, I think it would be safe to say that if you live in a town with more than one provider, you are picking the one with Sunday Ticket. And if the others want to remain competitve, they will all have to carry it. That is a ton of money.

 

And your point to 26, this is exactly the reason I don't see it remaining exclusive. You have lucrative contracts with cable providers, which in turn drives advertising dollars and digital content providers enabling consumers to purchase enhanced experiences. They don't want to alienate any one consumer base, especially with how fragmented it has become.

[nucci]

I really don't see that happening.

 

The NFL cares about money, but they also care about viewership. It's not just about the money they get from DirecTV. The more viewers they receive on Sunday Ticket means more viewers who are watching the commercials on CBS, and FOX. That leads to higher dollars for the NFL from CBS and Fox as well. It's a big circle.

I might be off here but don't CBS and Fox have a bit of a say in this. I know the games are the property of the NFL but the games are on these networks and DTV and whoever else takes from them, correct or no?

[26CornerBlitz]

Actually precedent may indicate that I am correct. It is no secret that the NFL has been wanting non-exclusive programming for a while now.

 

See the additional link (Exclusive deal for Verizon wireless streaming of NFL Sunday Games) in post 93 as concrete evidence that is counter to your argument.