> Globo.com only had rights for streaming the content to Brazil... with peak of 433K simultaneous users<p>This is a neat writeup but the bigger point here is highlighted by the opening statements. While i get the massive revenue channel the olympics provides, i can't help but feel that the media stranglehold over the events has gone too far.<p>The olympics represent one of the only instances of global unity through competition left in the world. Much the same way the world cup brings small and proud nations into the global stage, the olympics has the same power. Unfortunately, it is easier for me to find 20 year old simpsons clips on youtube than it is for me to find a video of Bolt's 100m heat from last week. Who benefits from this apart from NBC? I can list approx. 7.4B people who don't.<p>As a lover of capitalism this all leaves me conflicted. But i would point to the olympic coverage as the instance of corporations going too far with their constricting of media sharing.
I'm interested in learning what the average "delay" for live-streaming would be? At a high-level RTMP > (Segmenter: EvoStream) HLS > Cassandra < NginX-LUA < HTTP Request (seems to flow model outlined here (From the 2014 World Cup): <a href="https://www.nginx.com/blog/globo-coms-live-video-platform-fifa-world-cup-14-part-ii-microservices/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nginx.com/blog/globo-coms-live-video-platform-fi...</a>)<p>I'd assume it's minimum > 20 seconds depending on setup and teardown time for first "chunk" in a sequence to reach cache and be transferred to a user?
None of these numbers add up.<p>If 30 million hours were watched with an average bandwidth of 2Mbps, the total data volume should be 25,749TB (or close to 26PB) and not 400TB.<p>Also, if the peak bandwidth was 600Gpbs, that peak could not have lasted very long. With that much bandwidth the claimed 400TB of total transferred data would be used up in roughly 90 minutes.<p>So either the total data transferred or the number of hours watched figure is off by a factor of at least 60x.<p>[ I figured "400Tb" was supposed to mean 400 terrabytes. If it's actually 400 terrabits, the numbers are off by one magnitude more ]
Wow, that's not very much at all.<p>In comparison, I've been using a bit over 600TB with a budget of less than $500/month. With double the budget I could easily transfer olympic amounts of data!<p>Really puts to perspective how incredibly accessible bandwidth pricing is these days.
Curious how many Tb someone like twitch does per day. AFAIK they are the biggest live streaming platform, since Netflix is all HTTP.<p>Seems like that could be a big moneymaker for them, for these big time events that need a "live" aspect.
If its 455 TB of source video then you need around 91 5TB hard drives to store that. Although they probably have a cheaper tape storage or something.<p>If you wanted to buy that many on Amazon you can get external 5 tb now for $109. So that would cost about $9900. Which to me is a pretty small number considering.
Note that there's a mismatch between the listed title and the content of the article. The article refers to "400Pb (400000Tb)", not "455Tb".<p>This may be why there's such confusion about the numbers in the comments.
Let's say that an average video is 500MB nowadays. Be it a show, a short movie, a long HD music video on youtube, or a sport event on the olympics.<p>Let's say that 1000 thousand people are watching the Olympic games. 500 GB * 1000 people = That's 500 GB of traffic.<p>Let's convert GB to Gb (multiply by 8) and we're talking 400 Tb.<p>So.. The title of this article means there are about 1000 people who watched ONLY one event of the olympics and then put off their TV.<p>Well, I thought Olympics were a big worldwide event... I was wrong.<p>---<p>Alternative: We can take it the other way around and say that there were 1000 sport events during the Olympic, and one guy to watch them all :D<p>Just for Fun: I'd love to see the numbers from Dailymotion.com, see how much the Olympic Games are unpopular in comparison.