←back to thread

492 points storf45 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.01s | source
Show context
dylan604 ◴[] No.42157048[source]
People just do not appreciate how many gotchas can pop up doing anything live. Sure, Netflix might have a great CDN that works great for their canned content and I could see how they might have assumed that's the hardest part.

Live has changed over the years from large satellite dishes beaming to a geosat and back down to the broadcast center($$$$$), to microwave to a more local broadcast center($$$$), to running dedicated fiber long haul back to a broadcast center($$$), to having a kit with multiple cell providers pushing a signal back to a broadcast center($$), to having a direct internet connection to a server accepting a live http stream($).

I'd be curious to know what their live plan was and what their redundant plan was.

replies(6): >>42157110 #>>42157117 #>>42157164 #>>42159101 #>>42159285 #>>42159954 #
bena ◴[] No.42157117[source]
It is weird because this was a solved problem.

Every major network can broadcast the Super Bowl without issue.

And while Netflix claims it streamed to 280 million, that’s if every single subscriber viewed it.

Actual numbers put it in the 120 million range. Which is in line with the Super Bowl.

Maybe Netflix needs to ask CBS or ABC how to broadcast

replies(3): >>42157154 #>>42158872 #>>42159007 #
1. Taylor_OD ◴[] No.42159007[source]
Solves differently though, right? Cable broadcasts are not the same as a streaming video over the internet, right?
replies(1): >>42164755 #
2. bena ◴[] No.42164755[source]
Is the goal “show the fight” or “use this technology”?

I guarantee the people trying to watch the fight cared more about watching the fight than how the fight was watched.