I'm not a networking expert, but this doesn't sound right. How would using a CDN use less bandwidth?
My understanding is that a CDN for video improves performance and reduces traffic for the host but the total bandwidth doesn't change for the client, so for a network operator it wouldn't make any difference.
POP servers and the Telcos pushing that out even further (into neighborhood servers) with partnerships with major content sites. Once they finally switch all of the TV content to packets we'll see a lot more bandwidth overall because the Telcos can take advantage of this locality. In essence it is a distributed system with the majority of the P2P benefits. The Telco can be a major hub in the "P2P network" largely because it saves them money in the long-run
Total bandwidth reduces because the files get cached at the edge. E.g. if I'm watching a Netflix movie from the UK that is originally hosted in the US, the stream has to move to the UK, where it can then be cached, then it is also sent to me. For the first stream there is no bandwidth savings. Any additional person that watches the same only needs to get the file from the cached location, thus saving bandwidth between Netflix's hosting location, and UK.
In contrast with p2p, bandwidth may or may not be saved for the ISP. If my peers are close to me, sure, but if all my peers are US based, then there is no bandwidth savings. Furthermore, when I stop stream the video, and I don't have parts any more, and another in my area is still watching, they now have to connect to US peers and/or origin server.
This is obviously oversimplified. In reality, the best solution likely includes a CDN combined with P2P, which would maximise bandwidth savings for hosters and maximise performance.
My understanding is that a CDN for video improves performance and reduces traffic for the host but the total bandwidth doesn't change for the client, so for a network operator it wouldn't make any difference.