dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-01-17 12:35:00: Last week we noted that Netflix had started offering Ultra HD and 3D video streams to customers whose ISPs signed up to use the Netflix Open Connect content delivery network (CDN). ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

TWC is full of hot air

Why is TWC complaining?

Netflix knows that they can't jam more bandwidth through their ISP's pipes without paying for it - and having other ISPs complaining that it's not fair to them. We've heard that all before.

From a bandwidth management standpoint, I don't see why this is bad for TWC. Especially, when Netflix wants to do all of the hard work.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Ho hum! Most ISPs won't care

Most of the major ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T won't care. The faster connection & caching servers to Netflix is nice; but the Super HD content is limited; it won't run on most devices; and very few customers will care. So there is no real incentive for these ISPs to go out of their way to cut a deal with Netflix - definitely a "we'll get around to it sometime" attitude.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.



onlinemedia6

@qwest.net
reply to jjoshua

Re: TWC is full of hot air

I have tried Netflix, Hula Plus, and Amazon Prime Video....and I have come to the conclusion that the OWNERS of the content are the problem, and not the streaming service provider.

At the end of the day, these streaming providers are at the mercy of the content owners, who are really pissed that they aren't going to be reaping such large profits from customers, as they have been accustomed.

They want all houses to pay $80 plus bucks per month to them, plus rain down minutes of commercials, and for the consumer to be happy with it.

I think I will sit on the sidelines, without a TV, and NO cable or streaming services, and wait for the CONTENT owners to see the light..."We aren't going back to a HUGE monthly fee for entertainment(cable)...we want affordable choices(streaming providers)".

The way I see it -- if I DON'T support(spend money) the cable industry or streaming providers, they will have to figure out another way to SELL us the content we like....think about that. We really have the upper hand, the consumer, but you have to take a stand, and drop cable for awhile, send them letters...or just sit back down on the couch and continue "taking it".



DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:9
reply to FFH

Re: Ho hum! Most ISPs won't care

said by FFH:

Most of the major ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T won't care. The faster connection & caching servers to Netflix is nice; but the Super HD content is limited; it won't run on most devices; and very few customers will care. So there is no real incentive for these ISPs to go out of their way to cut a deal with Netflix - definitely a "we'll get around to it sometime" attitude.

Word from Netflix in another article was that much of the content today is already SuperHD, and that the vast majority of the content library will soon be completely SuperHD-ready.

-Dane

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Preferential Treatment

I have no problem believing Netflix is seeking preferential treatment. The terms for Sonic.net and Time warner are very possibly different. Time Warner is huge.

Netflix is not this innocent little company that the press and blogs like to make them out to be.



Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up

join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR
Reviews:
·Comcast

Netflix Thug like Behavior.

The problem is Netflix want to jam more bandwidth, compete with cable companies and expect the cable companies to give them room and pay for and upgrades to the network; all so can Netflix can make money off a minority of ISP's customers.
To Netflix is a case of companies behaving badly.



anon anon

@charter.com

Well maybe Netflix wouldn't have to go this route if ISP didn't have caps. Only 2 hours and 45 minutes of SuperHD streaming per day would put one over a 250 GB cap.

Also Netflix already pays for it's bandwidth.

And the reason why these ISP have customers paying $50+ month for high speed broadband is BECAUSE of companies like Netflix. If all I'm doing is checking e-mail, weather and sport scores and paying bills online I don't need high speed broadband. In fact I don't need my ISP at all because I can do all of that from my smartphone.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to onlinemedia6

Re: TWC is full of hot air

said by onlinemedia6 :

I have tried Netflix, Hula Plus, and Amazon Prime Video....and I have come to the conclusion that the OWNERS of the content are the problem, and not the streaming service provider.

From the consumer's point of you, you are pretty much correct. However from Netflix's point of view, they have to deal not only with the content companies to get the rights to the video, but they also have to deal with the major ISPs to get the content servers closer to the customer.

Where the content is at does directly impact the customer normally as long as the bandwidth is sufficient whatever path it needs to take across the internet. However the amount of bandwidth needed for all streams isn't sustainable or scalable to just host everything themselves as traditional website would. The less traffic Netflix has to send across the network from their pipes to the ISPs pipes to your home decreases their costs, the ISPs costs, and network congestion in general.

spdickey

join:2002-11-17
Pacific Palisades, CA
reply to Scatcatpdx

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

I am paying extra for TWCs best service. If they can't provide that to the whole internet, including Netflix, I blame TWC.


mwf

join:2000-11-26
Granite Quarry, NC

oh the irony

We believe it is wrong for Netflix to withhold any content formats from our subscribers
If I am paying for satellite/cable, why do i have to watch commercials?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to silbaco

Re: Preferential Treatment

Please explain how they are seeking preferential treatment as I, and many, disagree with this statement and you leave the door wide open for responses.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to anon anon

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

The caps have nothing to do with it. This will still count against caps.

Netflix isn't paying for this bandwidth or at least very little. That is part of the point to this program. To benefit Netflix. It doesn't really benefit ISPs. Customers are going to subscribe regardless of if they can get super HD. It may save ISPs some bandwidth in their core, but it will greatly increase the traffic in the last mile.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to mwf

Re: oh the irony

Because the channel operators require it?


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Scatcatpdx

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

Really? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

The problem is... Netflix is popular and many people want it. They will get it and will put lots of traffic on the ISP's whether that ISP wants it or not.

Now Netflix is able to provide their content at higher resolutions. They could do this without the ISP's agreeing, but it would be more costly to them, it would be more costly to the ISP and it would further impact the ISP's network.

Netflix is doing the nice thing by offering, for even free, to put content delivery servers deeper into the ISP's network so that 1.) It cost Netflix less to send the data but more importanly 2.) It saves the ISP's money and 3.) It puts less strain on the ISP's network in general.

It is a win win situation for the ISP and Netflix with the ISP's getting the bigger win.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to silbaco

Netflix wouldnt be paying for "this" bandwidth to begin with.

They have their peering agreement with Level 3, whom is the biggest provider of bandwidth in the world and the cost of the added traffic for higher resolution is marginal.

They dont need to have any agreement with ISP's and can send all the traffic they need over the consumer's ISP that they consumer wants to consume and there is not a single thing the ISP can do or say. Netflix is trying to save themselves money with Level 3, but they are also saving the ISP money as well as they too have peering agreements affected that the traffic will transit if they dont have caching servers. They are also allowing the ISP to provide better service to a very popular application that 20+ million people use. That makes the ISP's customer happy and makes them look good for doing the very thing they should do.... deliver the packets you request.


Ricanlegend

join:2011-05-18
Bronx, NY
reply to mwf

Re: oh the irony

said by mwf:

We believe it is wrong for Netflix to withhold any content formats from our subscribers
If I am paying for satellite/cable, why do i have to watch commercials?

You don't have to watch the commercials just get a dvr and fastforward it, I been doing this for 5 years is not that hard


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to Scatcatpdx

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

It's the ISP's job to upgrade their infrastructure to support their users demand, whatever that demand is, netflix etc.

In the traditional Netflix world, netflix pays for their bandwidth, customer's pay their upstream providers, not every destination to which they send traffic. This is the basic way that the internet has always worked. Customers be them Netflix, or the average broadband user pay money to their upstream provider and it is the provider's job to provide access to the rest of the internet both their downstream and upstream bandwidth.

That said I have to defend TW in one way, Netflix is strong arming the situation. They are ranking ISP's based on their netflix performance, which casual users may be influenced in their decision about providers.

This the agreement does benefit both companies, ISP's get to reduce their peering traffic, and netflix does the same way, by only sending one copy of a movie to the ISP's caching server.

But Netflix definitely makes out better as the cost for bandwidth is one of their main expenses. and has little downstream traffic, resulting in more lobsided peering while ISP's usually also provide hosting services and have a more equal peering which costs less. More lopsided peering agreements cost more money.

Finally the broadband rating are being used as leverage. Want to move up in the netflix performance rankings, host our servers and save us bandwidth costs.

Netflix is by no means innocent, They are the same as every ISP.


elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to anon anon

said by anon anon :

Well maybe Netflix wouldn't have to go this route if ISP didn't have caps. Only 2 hours and 45 minutes of SuperHD streaming per day would put one over a 250 GB cap.

Also Netflix already pays for it's bandwidth.

And Netflix is getting the bandwidth it paid for.

But if they want to see their customers happy with "Super" HD, they're going to have to buy some more bandwidth. Evidently, they figured out that last-mile caching is the optimum way to go given the effects of Network Neutrality.

Time Warner is probably willing to go along and allow Netflix to pay to place their caches, but I don't think they're appreciative of Netflix' publicity stunts.

lonon

join:2012-12-21
reply to Skippy25

Yes and because it saves ISPs money it makes any argument against net neutrality bunk. ISPs have been whining that Netflix cost them too much. Now they have no excuse to complain.

Netflix traffic shouldn't count against our caps, but we know that's not going to happen.


iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to mwf

Re: oh the irony

Or, more appropriately, why can't I get those channels a la carte?



Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

So basically, Time Warner wants others to pay them

even more absurd amounts for their half-ass product?

Yippie



buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

Funny How Time Warner Acts about Net Neutrality...

TWC must not have forseens that network neutrality is a two way street.



espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Sonic.net has a different cost model for transit

The transit cost model for small regional ISPs is very different than large national networks like TWC and Comcast. It's the basic build vs buy scenario that comes about with scale.

Sonic.net pays carriers for transit so that they will deliver bits to them in California. No matter where the traffic originates, carriers must carry that traffic out to California to hand it off to Sonic.net's network.

Comcast and TWC have national footprints, so it makes economic sense to build out their own national backbone. This also enables them to negotiate better transit pricing by taking on traffic in regions close to the source. If a TWC customer in California starts pulling video from a server in Atlanta on nLayer's network, nLayer can dump that traffic directly to TWC in Atlanta and TWC handles transporting that traffic back to their customer in California.

Here's where it breaks down: say Netflix is paying Level(3) for delivering content to TWC today. If TWC dedicates connections for OpenConnect, they will substantially reduce the traffic that transverses Level(3) to reach them. This reduction in traffic will lead to a decrease in revenue for Level(3) from Netflix, which will in turn cause an increase in rates for what Level(3) will charge TWC for bandwidth. (less of a volume discount, and have to make up for some of the lost Netflix revenue) TWC has to tie up network ports that are only used for a single Internet service (Netflix), and they will incur higher last-mile costs once they get this established because the bitrates offered via OpenConnect are higher than the standard service.

Most likely this will result in increased costs for a large national ISP, and those costs would be passed down to all ISP customers regardless if they are Netflix customers or not. Netflix, however, sees a huge financial benefit from the reduced transit costs. When you're dealing with $7.99/mo accounts, I'm not sure you can see enough of a cost drop to offset how much broadband rates would go up.


markbot

join:2012-11-21
New York, NY

do 2 wrongs make a right?

Netflix is basically violating the principles of net neutrality. they want preferential treatment from ISP that will cost them money to implement for better content. and this arrangement would probably reduce netflix's cdn costs. however, the ISP can already deliver the higher quality content now without even entering into this new agreement.



RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
reply to Skippy25

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

said by Skippy25:

Netflix wouldnt be paying for "this" bandwidth to begin with.

They have their peering agreement with Level 3, whom is the biggest provider of bandwidth in the world and the cost of the added traffic for higher resolution is marginal.

They dont need to have any agreement with ISP's and can send all the traffic they need over the consumer's ISP that they consumer wants to consume and there is not a single thing the ISP can do or say. Netflix is trying to save themselves money with Level 3, but they are also saving the ISP money as well as they too have peering agreements affected that the traffic will transit if they dont have caching servers. They are also allowing the ISP to provide better service to a very popular application that 20+ million people use. That makes the ISP's customer happy and makes them look good for doing the very thing they should do.... deliver the packets you request.

The way I understand it (I might be wrong) Netflix's peering with Level 3 is not an issue since the session never goes through Level 3 in the first place. Netflix is placing servers on the ISP's network and thus the complete session is on the ISP's network with no part of it being on the Internet.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to silbaco

Re: Preferential Treatment

said by silbaco:

I have no problem believing Netflix is seeking preferential treatment. The terms for Sonic.net and Time warner are very possibly different. Time Warner is huge.

Of course Netflix is seeking preferential treatment. They want to make their service better, and are offering ISPs a way to cut down on their transport costs. They prefer to get treated better since it's a benefit to all with the exception ISPs won't be able to gripe and charge Netflix access to their subscribers.

It's Netflix service, and they can setup their policies as they want. If they want to setup their service so that there content that consumes the most amount of bandwidth must be closest to the consumers. It saves them money, saves the ISP money, and helps ensure that the consumer has as little issue as possible with bandwidth related issues.

Netflix isn't pushing out any other streaming services. They are free to do it if they want as well. And any ISP can sign up to the program if they have a connection to one of the interconnect sites or peering exchanges settlement-free. Or if they are a larger ISP (Netflix suggests more than 100k subscribers in an area) that they can have their own 4U appliance with 100TB of storage and a 10GB network card locally.
Expand your moderator at work


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to espaeth

Re: Sonic.net has a different cost model for transit

While your partially right, the truth is that the bandwidth used in all of those peering agreements will drop considerably, netflix accounts for a huge amount of traffic, especially at peak times.
even if level 3 raises rates, the isp is going to be requesting a lot less traffic, overall costs shouldn't increase for the ISP, and likely will decrease, though not as much as they will for Netflix.

The real loser in this scenario is level 3, I doubt they can seriously raise prices to the point it will make up for the lost data transfer netflix and the isp are using.



jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
reply to onlinemedia6

Re: TWC is full of hot air

This thread isn't about content.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Skippy25

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

said by Skippy25:

Netflix is doing the nice thing by offering, for even free, to put content delivery servers deeper into the ISP's network so that 1.) It cost Netflix less to send the data but more importanly 2.) It saves the ISP's money and 3.) It puts less strain on the ISP's network in general.

It's mainly item #1. With few exceptions, transit capacity is not the issue for a residential ISP. The last mile is where the true bottleneck exists, and short of deploying the caching server on your LAN, there's nothing Netflix can do that's going to change this.

Transit costs are nothing compared to the last mile. Transit connections provide economy of scale, are comparatively easy to upgrade as new technology becomes available, and with relatively balanced traffic ratios can be had for next to nothing.