OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Music Games Hardware Sun Microsystems The Internet
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Sep 17

apple
Sep 23
(1 recent)

articles
Sep 23
(26 recent)

askslashdot
Sep 22
(4 recent)

books
Sep 23
(1 recent)

bsd
Sep 19

developers
Sep 22
(1 recent)

features
Sep 22
(1 recent)

interviews
Sep 23
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Sep 23
(5 recent)

yro
Sep 23
(4 recent)

Snail Mail Still Winning The Bandwidth War
The InternetPosted by timothy on Monday September 23, @04:18PM
from the first-mover-advantage dept.
LR_none writes "Today's New York Times has this short piece suggesting snail mail is the leading broadband technology, at least for video movies on demand. The article states that the 8 to 9 gigs of data on a DVD would take two weeks to download at 56kb, making Netflix' three-day distribution by mail seem speedy. (Since they can send three or more movies at once, Netflix compares favorably with DSL download speeds, too.) The author estimates Netflix alone distributes 1,500 terabytes a day, which is impressive considering the Internet carries 2,000TB a day (by estimates cited in the article). The 'immediate gratification' aspect of Internet consumerism has given a huge boost to companies like FedEx and UPS, but it's surprising to think of the post office as being the leading infrastructure provider for digital entertainment, in terms of market share and efficiency, for the forseeable future. (Disclaimer: I don't work for Netflix or the post office.)"

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· New York Times
· this short piece
· Netflix'
· FedEx
· UPS
· the post office
· More on The Internet
· Also by timothy

<  IBM, MS Critique MySQL | The Days of SysAdmin Numbered?  >
Snail Mail Still Winning The Bandwidth War | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 201 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
LAG! (Score:4, Funny)
by Tyler Eaves on Monday September 23, @04:20PM (#4314122)
(User #344284 Info | http://www.coastergames.net/)
Lag's a bitch though.

Not millisecond.
Not second.
Not minute.
Not hour.

Lag measured in DAYS.

Hell, even carrier pidgeon is probably faster ;)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:LAG! by Gorm the DBA (Score:1) Monday September 23, @04:22PM
    • Re:LAG! by gilesjuk (Score:2) Monday September 23, @04:23PM
      • Re:LAG! by Misch (Score:2) Monday September 23, @04:44PM
        • Re:LAG! by _Spirit (Score:1) Monday September 23, @05:48PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:LAG! (Score:5, Informative)
        by susano_otter on Monday September 23, @04:46PM (#4314366)
        (User #123650 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
        I've yet to experience significant "packet loss" from Netflix, and I go through about 16 DVDs a month with their service. Since February, I've received 1 disk I couldn't read, and one disk that was broken (but I think I stepped on that one).

        Packet loss is negligible.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        • Re:LAG! by isorox (Score:2) Monday September 23, @06:47PM
      • Re:LAG! by Mantorp (Score:1) Monday September 23, @04:46PM
  • CPIP by intermodal (Score:2) Monday September 23, @04:26PM
    • Re:CPIP by kasperd (Score:2) Monday September 23, @04:47PM
  • yeah... but by dalutong (Score:2) Monday September 23, @05:28PM
  • Re:LAG! by MattCohn.com (Score:1) Monday September 23, @08:22PM
  • Insurance by yerricde (Score:1) Monday September 23, @04:27PM
  • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
Significant fact to rebut MPAA claims . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
by werdna (werdna at mucow dot com) on Monday September 23, @04:21PM (#4314131)
(User #39029 Info | http://www.carltonfields.com)
The MPAA claims that the internet has creates significant consequences and risks -- citing to supposedly a kazillion feature films being pirated daily. This simple piece of arithmetic is a useful hunk of rebuttal.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
1GB Data Transfer (Score:3, Funny)
by TheOste on Monday September 23, @04:21PM (#4314133)
(User #413117 Info)
What's the fastest way to move 1GB of data nightly from LA to San Fran?

Fed-Ex
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Next they're going to tell me (Score:5, Funny)
by keep_it_simple_stupi on Monday September 23, @04:22PM (#4314141)
(User #562690 Info | http://balinski.zapto.org/blog)
that I could send a couch via FedEx easier than I could over the internet? These people are just plain nuts.

Oh wait...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Whew! (Score:3, Funny)
by Tsali on Monday September 23, @04:22PM (#4314147)
(User #594389 Info)
Nothing like snail mail to remedy my need for DVD's via my 28K line.

Of course, if you're using a 28K line, you're probably not instantly gratified that often anyways. :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Whew! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday September 23, @04:41PM
Really old quote (Score:5, Funny)
by RocketJeff on Monday September 23, @04:22PM (#4314153)
(User #46275 Info)
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes" - SysAdmin humor [bpfh.net]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Really old quote by TheMatt (Score:1) Monday September 23, @04:27PM
      Re:Really old quote (Score:4, Funny)
      by RocketJeff on Monday September 23, @04:41PM (#4314319)
      (User #46275 Info)
      Ladies and Germs, we have a winner. The first to post this joke is Mr. RocketJeff. Don Pardo, tell him what he's won!
      And I actually read the article first (not just the /. story). I must have seen it just as it hit the front page...

      I was at Best Buy this weekend and saw an ad for Netflix (Best Buy and Netflix have a cross-marking agreement). I pointed to it and told my wife "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes" - of course she looked at me like I was an idiot (nothing new...).

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Really old quote by Soko (Score:3) Monday September 23, @04:50PM
  • Re:Really old quote by Black Copter Control (Score:1) Monday September 23, @05:06PM
  • Re:Really old quote by houston_pt (Score:2) Monday September 23, @05:17PM
  • Re:Really old quote by UID30 (Score:1) Monday September 23, @06:13PM
an old expression (Score:2, Redundant)
by EnderWiggnz on Monday September 23, @04:22PM (#4314154)
(User #39214 Info)
never underestimate the baud rate of a station wagon filled with backup tapes...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Bad ping times. (Score:3, Funny)
by Kenja on Monday September 23, @04:22PM (#4314156)
(User #541830 Info | http://www.klassy.com/)
Tried playing Quake by snail mail. Took forever before the letter saying I'd been fraged 10^5 times for just standing there to arive.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Streaming? (Score:5, Insightful)
by conner_bw on Monday September 23, @04:23PM (#4314163)
(User #120497 Info | http://www.trotch.com/)
Although impressive statistically... This assumes you do not watch the movie until it is downloaded.

What about streaming video? Cached content on local streaming servers for local intranets?

You can’t stream the mail.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • Re:Streaming? by InnovATIONS (Score:1) Monday September 23, @04:29PM
  • Not on 56K by yerricde (Score:1) Monday September 23, @04:38PM
  • Re:Streaming? by Waffle Iron (Score:3) Monday September 23, @04:52PM
You think that's fast... (Score:2, Informative)
by saforrest on Monday September 23, @04:24PM (#4314184)
(User #184929 Info | http://forrest.cx/)
...never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes [bbc.co.uk].
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What's the snail equivalent of... (Score:1)
by TheMatt on Monday September 23, @04:24PM (#4314185)
(User #541854 Info)
Internet2, then? Does Fed-Ex or UPS Overnights equal it? How many DVDs would you need to ship to equal optimal performance on Abilene?

Kinda sad I'm thinking about this...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Netflix is great, but... (Score:5, Informative)
by NineNine on Monday September 23, @04:25PM (#4314196)
(User #235196 Info | http://ninenine.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 23, @12:26PM)
if you live on the East Coast, forget about it. Mail takes 5 business days, coming and going, making Netflix not all that cheap. If you get the basic service (3 movies at a time), if you watch the movies THE DAY you get them and send them back immediately, you still can't realistically get more than say, 6 movies a month. If Netflix opened a warehouse on the East Coast, shit, I'd get the best damn service they've got. If not for that huge mail lag for us on the East Coast, their service is fucking fantastic.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Yes, but... (Score:1)
by netphilter on Monday September 23, @04:25PM (#4314197)
(User #549954 Info | http://jason.whitehatorganization.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 17, @08:22AM)
...snail mail is much more susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Bandwidth vs. Latency (Score:2)
by MxTxL (<mlutter> <at> <cfl.rr.com>) on Monday September 23, @04:26PM (#4314201)
(User #307166 Info | http://www.kitestop.com/)
Bandwidth vs. Latency is always a big tradeoff in CS technologies. Sure you can ship larger packets (err... packages) via snail mail, but latency is still a big issue. An equivalent to a ping in mail might take two weeks using letters.

Cost is also an issue, next-day mail is REALLY expensive... shooting bits across the net is really cheap, and in comparison almost free.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Snail Mail... (Score:3, Insightful)
by isa-kuruption on Monday September 23, @04:27PM (#4314212)
(User #317695 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
High throughput... high latency :(

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Another metric ... (Score:1)
by BESTouff on Monday September 23, @04:28PM (#4314225)
(User #531293 Info | http://www.parateam.com/)
I still receive way more daily spam (in terms of data quantity) by snail-mail than by email. That alone is way more significative than the mythic "truckload of tapes".
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Must be a slow day. (Score:2, Flamebait)
by jellomizer on Monday September 23, @04:30PM (#4314242)
(User #103300 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Well Duh. of course you can ship huge amount of information faster by Mail then via Digital resorces. If you want I can transfer you 90 TerraBytes of information in one day via FexEx. Or lets say every molicule in a piece of paper is considered information there you have it I have sent more data. Mailing information is a 3d way of shiping and storage and in our 3d perceved world it is the best way to move data compared to the 1d Internet. Of course if you are shipping small amounts of information then Internet will win.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The USPS is a-okay (Score:4, Interesting)
by doc_traig on Monday September 23, @04:30PM (#4314244)
(User #453913 Info)

If I need it there Sometime Later This Week, I have no problem using the USPS for anything. They've never lost a piece of mail I was waiting for or sent out, and I have done a lot of business with patient buyers on eBay that were happy with the ship times and the handling with USPS. In fact, recently I have read about more issues with sending delicate equipment UPS/FedEx than with USPS Priority, for example.

Broadband just isn't a reality/necessity for enough people yet, and the size of applications and media in digital format is growing and is already too great for the Average Joe who has an affinity the Internet but doesn't know how to download 4 GB worth of video successfully (or patiently, for that matter).

- DDT

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
bandwidth and latency (Score:1)
by apuku on Monday September 23, @04:31PM (#4314254)
(User #576996 Info)
Yeah, it's hard to beat the bandwidth of a truckload of CD's or DVD's doing 70mph down the interstate... ...but the latency...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Yeah but the P.O. costs one HELL of a lot more! (Score:1)
by eggstasy on Monday September 23, @04:32PM (#4314260)
(User #458692 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Let's face it, my DSL is up 24 hours a day and I pay the same $35 whether i use it or not.
I don't own a DVD burner, or even a player for that matter, and sending a CD via snail mail sets me back around $7.
Thus, at a fixed cost of $35 dollars I can either send 5 CDs to someone per month, or download 5 CDs per day!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
NetFlix rocks for us HDTV junkies (Score:4, Interesting)
by Bryce on Monday September 23, @04:32PM (#4314262)
(User #1842 Info | http://www.worldforge.org)
NetFlix alone helped justify the cost of
getting an HDTV for me - I find I spend
more hours per week watching Netflix-supplied content than anything else, and most DVD's are in widescreen
formats.

It works out to be cheaper than Blockbuster if you like watching lots of
movies, and is more flexible than the
pay channels.

I wish they had more content though, as
you can pretty quickly run through all the
movies you haven't seen already. ;-)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
but what about (Score:3, Interesting)
by Polo on Monday September 23, @04:35PM (#4314276)
(User #30659 Info | file:///etc/passwd)
What about Satellite?

I have a 40gb PVR and it's filled all the time.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Disclaimer (Score:4, Funny)
by ChaosDiscordSimple on Monday September 23, @04:38PM (#4314292)
(User #41155 Info | http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/)
(Disclaimer: I don't work for Netflix or the post office.)
Thanks for letting us know. I was afraid there might be some bias. (Disclaimer: I don't work for Slashdot, the Prince of Darkness, or Illuminati.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Snail mail winning?! Lets look at.... (Score:1)
by siliconshock.com (slashdot AT siliconshock DOT com) on Monday September 23, @04:38PM (#4314293)
(User #531040 Info | http://siliconshock.com/)
How about digital cable w/ VOD service or DTV and other sat services? I think those are clearly delivering more digital content to a much wider audience than the post office. Any thoughts on this?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What is the saying... (Score:1, Redundant)
by TFloore on Monday September 23, @04:39PM (#4314300)
(User #27278 Info)
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes."

Something like that. Think it was the sig line from someone's rec.humor posting in the early 90s.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The ultimate MOD? (Score:3, Interesting)
by Java Pimp on Monday September 23, @04:40PM (#4314309)
(User #98454 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
From a +3 comment [slashdot.org] this morning to the front page! Nice! :-)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Depends on what your time is worth (Score:1)
by Wireless Joe on Monday September 23, @04:42PM (#4314329)
(User #604314 Info)
I can pay Brown or FedEx shipping and handling on top of paying for the movie, or I can download it for free. I think that it's still worth the price of the movie and shipping to guarantee that I'm getting a good quality copy of the movie instead of crappy mislabled DivX porn.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Pretty good security too... (Score:1)
by dmachine on Monday September 23, @04:42PM (#4314330)
(User #519368 Info)
I've never used a USPS network, but in addition to the high bandwidth, seems like it would have pretty decent security too...Out of the reach of M$ patches at the very least, and have had decades to work out the bugs on the current release. Too bad its protocol isn't compatibile with TCP/IP.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Compares favorable to DSL? Not. (Score:1)
by Lars Clausen on Monday September 23, @04:42PM (#4314335)
(User #1208 Info)
Unless you have crappy DSL, mailing DVDs doesn't help you much.

I get 75KB/s on my DSL line. It would take me 125829 seconds to download 9G of data. That's 34 hours. Not bad compared to two-three days for mail. You can get DSL with twice that rate if you have a good phone line and slightly more money.

Mailing DVDs is also faster than telegraphing them, but telegraphing went out of style only slightly before 28K phone lines.

-Lars
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What about cost? (Score:1)
by ohboy-sleep on Monday September 23, @04:43PM (#4314342)
(User #601567 Info | http://www.muchsarcasm.com/)
Technically I could send ever Bond movie, the entire NFL Films library, and the collectors' edition DVD of UHF all at the same time via snail mail. But that's going to cost A LOT of money.

The article briefly mentioned cost, but it didn't necessarily say that mail 3 videos was the same cost as downloading them.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
immediate gratification is very importan (Score:1)
by lingqi on Monday September 23, @04:45PM (#4314355)
(User #577227 Info)
like. say... when I have a date with Pamla Handerson, or Rosy Palms, etc etc

*runs*
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Efficiency (Score:1, Redundant)
by anthony_dipierro (five.plus.five@inbox.org) on Monday September 23, @04:47PM (#4314379)
(User #543308 Info | http://slashdotsucks.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 07, @03:48PM)

Andrew Odlyzko, the director of the Digital Technology Center at the University of Minnesota, says that the cost to the service provider of transmitting a data file the size of a typical DVD movie over the Internet could be nearly $20.

Sure, if you unicast it. Alternatively, you can use a satellite and distribute it to millions of people all at the same time...

The leading broadband technology? Television.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Just imagine how fast snail mail would be... (Score:4, Funny)
by Quixadhal on Monday September 23, @04:49PM (#4314402)
(User #45024 Info)
...if you didn't have to share bandwidth with all those spammers.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Isn't snail mail just another network connection? (Score:1)
by raehl on Monday September 23, @04:50PM (#4314412)
(User #609729 Info | http://www.college-paintball.com/)
If I log onto a website and request a few gigs of data, which they burn onto a DVD and mail to me, which I then put in my DVD player...

Isn't that really LOWER latency than spending 2 weeks to download it? First class mail will get most things to most places in 4-5 business days, meaning that the last bit of information I want gets to me a week earlier, or more.

And requesting the data initially by using the internet shaved off the 5 days it would have taken to send in my request by mail.

So isn't snail mail just acting like another network connection? Request sent to server, data returned from server, both done through fastest connections, both using unique send and return addresses.

Now if you really want to have fun, think about AOL sending out them CD's with AOL software to "everyone" as the worlds largest multicast message. ;)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Bandwidth... (Score:2)
by msheppard on Monday September 23, @04:50PM (#4314413)
(User #150231 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
A networks instructor once told me

        "Never underestimate the bandwidth of an 18-wheeler full of CDs."

M@
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What to do? (Score:1)
by McFly69 on Monday September 23, @04:54PM (#4314436)
(User #603543 Info)

Send in the Hermit Crabs!!
The Crabs will kicks the snails ass!

Sorry, but someone had to say it :)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Bandwidth of a station wagon full of quater inch t (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23, @04:56PM (#4314444)
Okay. For the rest of you who get just a little ticked off when strung along for 80 comments only to be left hanging, the bandwidth of a station wagon full of quarter-inch tapes is approximately:

13 Petabytes per second.

For comparison purposes, this is equivalent to about 650 strands of perfectly saturated, single-mode fiber optic cable.

This figure will, of course, vary depending on a number of factors. In order to compensate for your own rate of travel and storage media, simply fill in the blanks below to get your tally! It's fun for kids of all ages!

BW = (( WV / (TW * TL * TH ) ) * TC * WS / WL) , where

BW = bandwidth in bytes / second
WV = the volume of your station wagon, in cubic meters
TW = the width of each individual quarter-inch tape, in meters
TL = the length of each individual quarter-inch tape, in meters
TH = the height of each individual quarter-inch tape, in meters
TC = the capacity of each individual quarter-inch tape, in bytes
WS = the speed of your station wagon, in meters/sec
WL = the length of your station wagon, in meters

This figure assumes average instantaneous bandwidth down the length of the wagon; in reality, I would assume that the bulk of the data transfer would occur in the region nearest the trunk.

To get my figure, simply plug in: WV = 2.72, TW = 0.054, TL = 0.073, TH = 0.0105, TC = 35.0 * 10 ^ 9, WS = 26.8, WL = 4.75. These numbers are meant to describe a stuffed 2001 Subaru Outback doing 60MPH using 35GiB tapes of this form factor.

I'm told that the term 'bandwidth' applies to a communications channel. As such, a station wagon hardly counts -- it'd be like asking for the bandwidth of an IP packet. It wouldn't make sense. Similarly, it's not so much the bandwidth of the wagon as the bandwidth of the channel along which the wagon travels. With this in mind, walk with me through the following justifications.

When it's said that a SCSI bus (for example) is sustaining 20 million bits per second ( for example), what's implied is that a) if one observes the output of the bus, during every second in time, 20 million valid bits appear, on average, and b) if one observes the input of the bus, every second 20 million valid bits are being shoved onto the bus. What's not being said is how long it takes for a given bit to go from being shoved into the bus inlet to being taken out of the bus outlet. This number's usually called latency, I'm told. Regardless, in this case, the bus (channel of interest) is sustaining a bandwidth of 20 million bits per second. On average. The length of the bus is irrelevant as far as bandwidth is concerned: doubling the length of the physical bus will not change the fact that 20 million bits per second are coming out of it / going into it (at steady state), it will merely double the time it takes for a given bit to go in and then come out the other end.

So, to be proper, it should be mentioned that by 'bandwidth of a station wagon' I have computed the 'bandwidth of a one-lane road of indefinite length packed bumper-to-bumper with station wagons, each carrying quarter-inch tapes'. After all, it's the road that is really the communications channel in question, the wagon is simply the data packet.

However, if you view the communications medium as 'a road of given length with exactly one station wagon on it, carrying quarter inch tapes', then it is vital to know the length of the road in order to compute the time-averaged throughput attainable on this communications medium. Some would say that this is closer to what is assumed by the original quote. I guess it depends on your perspective. What a great way to say we're both right :-)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I would say Analog cable wins. (Score:1)
by philzama on Monday September 23, @04:56PM (#4314452)
(User #582467 Info)
If you want to talk about movin' some data just ponder the awesome analog B/W of your typical cable company coax filled with 200 chanels of 30fps video at 320x240 and infinite colors. If you want to see it break under pressure just "upgrade" to the digital service. Someone do the math on this one. (i am way to lazy) Geezer Sig
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
cable bandwidths (Score:2, Insightful)
by foolishtreader on Monday September 23, @04:58PM (#4314463)
(User #580814 Info)
"Broadcast quality" video requires about 5Mb. A cable system that carries 70 channels should therefore have at least 300Mb/s raw bandwidth. That's enough to download a 9GB movie in four minutes. One third of that would be enough to download the top 120 movies once a day. 1/36 of that would be enough to download 8 hours of network programming for each of five networks, for on-demand viewing, still leaving more than half the total bandwidth unused.There's lots of bandwidth out there, but people are too busy worrying about intellectual property rights to take advantage of it. Until we have an approach that separates compensation to artists and producers from distribution, our distribution system will remain wildly irrational.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What if I map an IP to a snail mailbox? (Score:1)
by raehl on Monday September 23, @04:58PM (#4314466)
(User #609729 Info | http://www.college-paintball.com/)
Could I then have file sent to that IP, and everytime a DVD's worth of data is received, mail the DVD to the appropriate mailbox?

Hell, with disk space so inexpensive nowadays, you could REALLY tick off the MPAA/RIAA/SPCA... let p2p users deposit their files on a server with a high-bandwidth connection instead of downloading them over their 56k's and then just burn the data onto a CD/DVD for them once a week and send it out in the mail. Charge $5 a CD.

Or better yet, if you're Kinko's or Western Union or the post office or something else with lots of locations - what if you rented out a few gigs of IP-mapped "mailbox" at your locations, let people download to that location, and then come in and pick up their data?

No, wait, that's too intelligent of a business model for information distribution for the MPAA/RIAA/SPCA to ever let you get away with it.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
NetFlix alternative in Canada... (Score:1)
by Nyktos on Monday September 23, @05:00PM (#4314478)
(User #198946 Info)
If you're like me, then you live in Canada and were pissed to find out that Netflix didn't ship up here (even if they did, it'd end up being expensive given the CDN peso + whatever else).

DVDHype [dvdhype.com] is a Canadian based service much like Netflix. Their website leaves something to be desired, but their service has been great and shipping fairly fast (4 days from east to left coast - they are based in Ontario I think and I am in BC).

PS. I don't work for them, or even use subscribe at the moment (damn school), but I like em.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
But how's the latency of the connection? (Score:2)
by tunabomber on Monday September 23, @05:02PM (#4314490)
(User #259585 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
This reminded me of the time I read Penises have higher bandwidth than cable modems. [everything2.com]
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
bits in the protocol (Score:2, Interesting)
by dan501 on Monday September 23, @05:07PM (#4314536)
(User #223225 Info)
It's no wonder the bandwidth and latency of shipping DVDs is higher than the internet.

It's simpler to make a lower bits per packet protocol (like rs232 or SSA) than a higher bits per packet (uwSCSI).

you just make up for lower frequency with bigger packets.

the internet is an 8 data bit protocol compared to the (4.7GB * 8) data bit protocol of mailing DVDs.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Never underestimate the bandwidth of... (Score:1)
by djtack on Monday September 23, @05:13PM (#4314613)
(User #545324 Info)
a Buick Century full of tapes.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
TeraScale SneakerNet (Score:2)
by NearlyHeadless (kenhirsch@myself.com) on Monday September 23, @05:16PM (#4314646)
(User #110901 Info)
Database guru Jim Gray
discusses [microsoft.com] what turned out to be the most reasonable solution to sending terabytes of data (the Sloan Digital Sky Survey) in a convenient form across the globe: sending complete servers with terabyte disk subsystems.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
anybody know? (Score:1, Offtopic)
by lingqi on Monday September 23, @05:24PM (#4314729)
(User #577227 Info)
how much of the 2TB daily internet traffic is

1) spam
2) overhead

??
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
NetFlix Uses Pop-unders (Score:1, Troll)
by peterdaly (petedaly@noSPAm.ix.netcom.com) on Monday September 23, @05:36PM (#4314843)
(User #123554 Info | http://www.starvingmind.net/)
I would like to use Net-Flix, but refuse to based on their use of Pop-Under ads. I get them all the time on my windows machine running IE.

I know this is semi off-topic, but I think it is important.

I refuse to buy anything from most pop-under advertisers, I suggest you do to.

-Pete
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
astronomical amounts of data (Score:1)
by @10u8 on Monday September 23, @05:49PM (#4314971)
(User #179705 Info)
... or perhaps that should read, amounts of astronomical data. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey [sdss.org] participants often need to be able to replicate their database of astronomical objects. This is about a terabyte of data. One of their collaborators [microsoft.com] has a (ugh, Microsoft Word document) on why Tera-Scale Sneaker Net [microsoft.com] is the cheapest and fastest way to do it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Now if only netflix decided to come to Canada... (Score:2)
by MarcoAtWork on Monday September 23, @05:53PM (#4315006)
(User #28889 Info)
like amazon.ca, it would be great...

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
1,500TB? Doubt it. (Score:1)
by mriker on Monday September 23, @06:02PM (#4315061)
(User #571666 Info)
Maybe Netflix distributes 1,500TB a day of movies, but that's using DVD's MPEG-2 compression. Encode 'em with DivX and you're gonna slash that figure by what... 80-90%?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 20 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  "...Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly)." (By Matt Welsh)
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]