If you’re planning on relying on the Internet to get work done on Friday – especially if you’re on the East Coast — you may want to think about working unplugged. William and Kate may spoil your day.
Not even the HDTV Almanac is a Royal-Wedding-Free zone. But rather than focus on bridal trains and the [...]
In my opinion it is a bit silly to think that the internet will have issues supporting the bandwidth consumed by persons streaming the royal wedding. If the internet were so fragile, Netflix would have taken it down a long time ago.
Wouldn't a single, or even a few streams basically go out as a single item to be duplicated at each node to the subs?
I mean, BBC is not going to supply the signal to the entire world, and who they feed too is not...only from an ISP to a single subnet would the stream become individualized. Wouldn't it?
Not even the same order of magnitude. Roughly a third of the world - or more - has a direct, or in the case of the United States, a historical, connection with the Royal Family. If all those people end up trying to get a feed on the Internet, no pipes extant would be big enough. I realize that isn't likely anyway, but Netflix isn't in the same ballpark as this event.
Not even the same order of magnitude. Roughly a third of the world - or more - has a direct, or in the case of the United States, a historical, connection with the Royal Family. If all those people end up trying to get a feed on the Internet, no pipes extant
would be big enough. I realize that isn't likely anyway, but Netflix isn't in the same ballpark as this event.
While I agree that the number of Netflix subcribers (out of 20 million or so) streaming video is less than the number of people connected to the "Royal Family" I still think this story is a bit silly. Less than 30% of the world population even has access to the internet, let alone a broadband connection capable of streaming video. Of those people who could stream it online, who would actually want to? It's just a wedding, and royalty isn't all that impressive to most of us common folks.
Not that interesting....hmmm. Everyone I have talked to saw at least some of the broadcast - at least the whole wedding.
I did not think I cared, till I started watching -between my wife and DVR, I was an easy target. The inclusion of the Westminster Abbey building in the array of shots first caught my attention - and it was spectacular in HD. So cool that they brought a set of trees in, to bring intimacy. But the contrast of old stone and gold, the rather tight long hall, with a 100' ceiling and stained glass. Quite a sight.
Then I realized it all had lots of aspects to watch. It is so unusual, that in itself made it interesting. But in the end, simply watching the crowds in London so entralled and excited, had it's own attraction and infectious excitement. And againn of course, the city and vehciles and other inanimate objects all became part of it, and were just great to see in HD. I mean who does not appreciate a fleet of Bentley's?, and WWII era airplanes, and million or so guards in the classic red with the big hats. A visual spectacular.
And really, her dress was incredible. Don't even ask how I 'got it', I am a techie without an ounce of fashion or especially wedding fashion sense. Hell, I wear jeans and polo shirts 24/7. But that dress had a life of it's own, a classic.
Now for how many watched it, and how many watched it on the net, I have no clue. The claim was 2 billion saw it. I might guess that was over half of the connected worlds population.
Maybe we still have a genetic connection to the Brits and royalty, or to the basic concepts. Even if they are simply a 'corporate' presense in a manner of speaking.
Or maybe it was the contrast with the classless garbage that has has graced our TV all week in the visage of Trump.
