←back to thread

492 points storf45 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.228s | 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 #
ironhaven ◴[] No.42157154[source]
Do you live stream the superbowl? Me and everyone I know watch it over antenna broadcast tv. I think it is easier to have millions of tvs catch airwaves vs millions of point to point https video streams.
replies(2): >>42157416 #>>42161172 #
1. devnullbrain ◴[] No.42161172[source]
>I think it is easier to have millions of tvs catch airwaves vs millions of point to point https video streams.

Exactly! It was a solved problem.

The Superbowl isn't even the biggest. World Cup finals bring in billions of viewers.