 (Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310
1 recommendation |
Netflix being NetflixWhile the CDN has to be helpful ISPs with a higher average subscriber speed should rank highest.
My only issue is that SuperHD is only available from those ISPs participating with the Netflix CDN.
This goes against the OPEN internet that Netflix wants.
Net Neutrality is a TWO way street folks. | |
|
 | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 11:16 am
Re: Netflix being NetflixI don't have any issue with the SuperHD situation.
I do have an issue with these numbers they're throwing out. IMO throwing out averages of SD and HD content combined is completely and utterly meaningless. It would make a lot more sense to separate the two. | |
|
| silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
3 recommendations |
to buzz_4_20
Netflix has never wanted an open internet. They want an internet where they can offer their product for the lowest cost possible. That is all they have ever cared about.
If they thought they could get away with charging ISPs to connect with the Netflix OpenConnect CDN, I don't doubt for a moment that they would. | |
|
| | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 recommendation |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 12:09 pm
Re: Netflix being Netflixsaid by silbaco:They want an internet where they can offer their product for the lowest cost possible. That is all they have ever cared about. That's what every business on the Internet wants. said by silbaco:If they thought they could get away with charging ISPs to connect with the Netflix OpenConnect CDN, I don't doubt for a moment that they would. Except the reality is it is the other way around and the larger ISPs are already extorting money for content even though customers are paying to reach the content. ISPs are double dipping. The greedy large ISPs are trying to turn the Internet into a cable TV experience. | |
|
| | 54761437 (banned)
join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC |
to silbaco
None of the national ISPs want an open Internet, either. Verizon wants to turn the Internet into a pay-per-view service, using mafia style threat tactics to shake money out of content originators for the privilege of packets traversing their network. And none of them care about delivering better landline speeds or upgrading infrastructure, even though Verizon and AT&T's combined wealth is more than that of some countries. So who exactly *is* championing this open Internet you speak of? | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to buzz_4_20
This has absolutely nothing to do with NN.
First off they are a content provider, they dont control the lines it comes across. However, they are kind enough to try to help out those people by putting caching servers closer to their consumers lightening the load for their consumers. It is a win - win situation.
Second, educate yourself on what it is you are speaking of. | |
|
| | (Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition
Ruckus R310
|
Re: Netflix being NetflixYes, that part isn't. However, only allowing SuperHD to those ISPs who participate is.
They are not providing content to customers evenly. If your connection can handle the SuperHD stream you should get access to it. Not just because your ISP signed up. | |
|
| | | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 5:00 pm
Re: Netflix being NetflixYour ISP has the choice of whether they join the CDN or not. They are making the choice of not joining because they don't want you to use the higher bit rate content. It would result in more traffic across their network. The real issue is the games the big ISPs are playing. | |
|
| jjeffeoryjjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN
1 recommendation |
to buzz_4_20
This is absolutely NOT a Neutrality issue. Netflix isn't the ISP. They do not control the flow of data between the customer and themselves through the Internet.
It would be nice if people would actually sit down and learn what Net Neutrality is and who can be a violator of its tenants... | |
|
| | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 5:08 pm
Re: Netflix being NetflixYou expect the usual ignorant posters to understand what they're talking about? I used to call these people trolls but the more I read their crap it's just ignorance and they actually believe the crap they're spewing. | |
|
| |
| Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
to buzz_4_20
You can also peer with Netflix if you're large enough to have a connection to an Internet Exchange. | |
|
| | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 11:38 pm
Re: Netflix being Netflixsaid by Bengie25:You can also peer with Netflix if you're large enough to have a connection to an Internet Exchange. Exchanges allow anyone to peer no matter their size. The minimum traffic level to peer with Netflix is 2Gbps which you would have to be a pretty darn small ISP to not meet that requirement. Also some tier 2 providers such as Hurricane Electric for example peer with Netflix and having transit through them also nets an ISP the ability to receive SuperHD. | |
|
| | | Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
Re: Netflix being Netflixsaid by 34764170:Exchanges allow anyone to peer no matter their size. But if your nearest IX is 600 miles away, your ISP needs to have some bank to afford the gear and cost to rent or even more capital to own the fiber link. If you're already in LA, NY, Chicago, Dallas, you're good to go, but if you're in Montana, you got a distance to travel. A 500 customer ISP may not be "big enough" to be able to afford presence at an IX. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Oh good grief, more Netflix BS.This is like reading Mark Cuban comments. It's a bunch of one sided bullshit that's meant to boost their egos and profits.
Again just like the Akami "reports" they DO NOT account for what people SUBSCRIBE to. If you have a city where you can get 100Mb fiber for $69/mo and there is a 30Mb option for $29/mo the overwhelming majority of users are going to be happy with 30Mb and will subscribe to 30Mb. When these "reports" come out from Netflix and Akami they penalize the ISP by making claims that they are providing an inferior service. | |
|
 MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
1 recommendation |
Morac
Member
2013-Sep-12 11:20 am
Throttling?I'm wondering how much throttling has an affect on the rankings.
I have Comcast and even though I have a 50 Mbps down connection (which I can get in speed tests), my devices frequently struggles to lock on to Netflix's 3.8 Mbps HD stream; many times falling back to the 2.8 Mbps stream.
This is only an issue with Netflix (via Level3). Amazon Prime and others have no issues streaming at speeds much higher than that. | |
|
|  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-Sep-12 11:25 am
Re: Throttling?said by Morac:I'm wondering how much throttling has an affect on the rankings.
I have Comcast and even though I have a 50 Mbps down connection (which I can get in speed tests), my devices frequently struggles to lock on to Netflix's 3.8 Mbps HD stream; many times falling back to the 2.8 Mbps stream.
This is only an issue with Netflix (via Level3). Amazon Prime and others have no issues streaming at speeds much higher than that. Blame Level 3 & Netflix. | |
|
| | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 12:06 pm
Re: Throttling?More like blame Level 3 & Comcast. You really think there was a favorable outcome for Comcast customers after the Level 3 & Comcast spat over Level 3 becoming a CDN? Comcast customers were requesting traffic, Level 3 was providing the traffic. Comcast didn't want to pay for their customers. You know there had to be a compromise. | |
|
| | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN |
BlueC
Member
2013-Sep-12 2:48 pm
Re: Throttling?Or blame Comcast solely. They have the option to peer with Netflix directly to improve the quality of routing for their customers. Instead, they play games with carriers and allow the Netflix traffic to come in over congested transit.
I have a blend of transit including Level 3 and I've never experienced any Netflix issues. It's a two-way street, I don't allow my upstreams to run hot, and I certainly wouldn't be paying a carrier to allow them to do that. | |
|
| | | | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 5:01 pm
Re: Throttling?Oh I blame Comcast considerably more so. They play games with other carriers and their peering and they run their TATA transit hot pretty much all the time. If the other carriers don't cave to their demands they route the traffic through their congested TATA links. | |
|
| | |  batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
to 34764170
said by 34764170:Comcast didn't want to pay for their customers. With all of your posting in an authoritative manner I just had to see for myself. With Level 3 being more than a carrier, being a CDN also makes them a host; a host that charges Netflex and others to host their servers. Peer means equal or like, when one, Level 3, dumps five times the traffic on Comcast as Comcast dumps on Level 3 that is not equal. B.T.W. Netflex cannot be a peer, equal, as they don't own an inch of glass. Now I do find it interesting that not being able to watch old movies in HD is the biggest complaint on this forum. What happened to not being able to perform robotic brain surgery form the outhouse? | |
|
| | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN |
BlueC
Member
2013-Sep-12 3:00 pm
Re: Throttling?Just as Comcast is more than a carrier.
I don't see the whole outbound/inbound argument being relative anymore. Comcast benefits from this inbound traffic, since their users are requesting it and those said users pay Comcast to receive the traffic. | |
|
| | | | |  DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
|
DocDrew
Premium Member
2013-Sep-12 3:30 pm
Re: Throttling?said by BlueC:Comcast benefits from this inbound traffic, since their users are requesting it and those said users pay Comcast to receive the traffic. Not all Comcast customers are Netflix customers, but Netflix customers are the ones requesting it and those said users pay Netflix to deliver the traffic. Netflix should pay for the bandwidth they need to deliver. Comcast rarely refuses a paying customer. | |
|
| | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
BlueC
Member
2013-Sep-12 3:49 pm
Re: Throttling?said by DocDrew:Not all Comcast customers are Netflix customers, but Netflix customers are the ones requesting it and those said users pay Netflix to deliver the traffic. Netflix should pay for the bandwidth they need to deliver. If Comcast were peering with Netflix at a remote location (where Comcast is paying for transport, solely, to meet them there and Netflix is not contributing in that said transport cost), then I'd agree. Otherwise, that's a one-sided way of looking at things. | |
|
| | | | | | | DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
2 edits |
DocDrew
Premium Member
2013-Sep-13 3:12 am
Re: Throttling?I see Netflix, ISP situation akin to a Super Walmart, housing development, or new pro stadium dropping into town.
Yes, the town approved the build and the town people often want it but usually with stipulations that the large project builder also pay a good percentage of local infrastructure improvements like freeway modifications, road expansion, street lights installation, etc. needed to support it. Often in trade those big builders also get benefits later, like tax breaks or first chance at other new developments. The town just can't cough up the money to support all the needed improvements up front.
The existing infrastructure could support new ordinary businesses like a market, gas station, or restaurant. Walmart or a stadium on the other hand creates or changes traffic patterns so much the existing infrastructure or normal town planned improvements just won't handle it. Often other areas that have been improved see a drop in traffic.
The above and beyond requirements have to be dealt with. Most large businesses building new locations see it as the cost of doing business, they don't like it and try to minimize it, but they need to do it for their new location to be successful. If they wait on the town to do it, it may take years longer then the business planned and wants to wait.
Back to Netflix and ISPs... Sure Netflix has multiple ports and good bandwidth into multiple ISP locations often for free or low costs, but Netflix demand is getting so high, especially on larger ISPs and they are running out of router ports and bandwidth faster than they planned or budgeted. ISPs have to get new routers and increase bandwidth just to handle Netflix demands, so they want to pass costs on to Netflix, which Netflix balks at.
Some see it as double dipping or blackmail, but the business building the new location or service needs access to the customers and has to play by their rules to get there. If they don't someone else probably will. | |
|
| | | | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
5 recommendations |
BlueC
Member
2013-Sep-13 11:09 am
Re: Throttling?said by DocDrew:Back to Netflix and ISPs... Sure Netflix has multiple ports and good bandwidth into multiple ISP locations often for free or low costs, but Netflix demand is getting so high, especially on larger ISPs and they are running out of router ports and bandwidth faster than they planned or budgeted. ISPs have to get new routers and increase bandwidth just to handle Netflix demands, so they want to pass costs on to Netflix, which Netflix balks at. Are you kidding? Netflix is responsible for ISP's own customers using the bandwidth they pay for? I operate a small ISP (less than 5000 subs) and I have no problem supporting Netflix traffic. In fact, I encourage it with my customers because these traffic levels are easy to manage. I don't offer speeds to my customers that my network cannot handle, that's just poor management. If a small ISP like me can handle Netflix traffic, what's Comcast's excuse? They have plenty of revenue to support these levels of traffic. After all, they're marketing 22mbps, 50mbps, and 100mbps+ service tiers in most areas. Those are more than capable of supporting Netflix's streaming bitrate (which most of the time is around 3-6mbps sustained). You're telling me a sustained 3-6mbps stream per customer is a burden on a large network? You fail to realize that Netflix is connected to a number of IXPs, most of which Comcast has connectivity already established. Sure, they might need to light up another port to support the increased utilization, however that is a very small cost for an ISP like Comcast, originating over 70,000,000 IP addresses. Netflix only requires 2x 10gbps ports. The larger ISPs are rolling out 100gbps+ connectivity these days. 10gbps is not that expensive, even smaller ISPs can afford 10gbps ports. » signup.netflix.com/openc ··· hardwareIf it weren't Netflix, it'd be some other streaming provider sending the traffic downstream to their customers. If the ISP cannot handle it, it's their own fault for opening the floodgates to their customers. Face it, Comcast refuses to improve Netflix connectivity because they view them as a threat to their business model. Anything outside of that is a flat out lie. If you truly believe that Netflix is a burden on Comcast's network, then I would not want to be one of their subscribers knowing they are managed that poorly. I'd kill for their margins. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
4 edits |
DocDrew
Premium Member
2013-Sep-13 12:38 pm
Re: Throttling?said by BlueC:You fail to realize that Netflix is connected to a number of IXPs, most of which Comcast has connectivity already established. Sure, they might need to light up another port to support the increased utilization, however that is a very small cost for an ISP like Comcast, originating over 70,000,000 IP addresses. Netflix only requires 2x 10gbps ports. The larger ISPs are rolling out 100gbps+ connectivity these days. 10gbps is not that expensive, even smaller ISPs can afford 10gbps ports.
»signup.netflix.com/openconnect/hardware
If it weren't Netflix, it'd be some other streaming provider sending the traffic downstream to their customers. How scalable is that unit? How many video streams can it handle? How many would a large ISP need to install? Which locations would an ISP need to install them in for good network performance and scalability? The writeup says the hard drives are not hot swappable, so I figure repairs need a full chassis shutdown, repair or replacement. It'd probably be best to install them in pairs for redundancy so a failure doesn't cause an outage. It's also be a good idea to have another spare nearby so the failed unit can be replaced with little delay during the RMA or repair process. Multiply that by the number of sites they're installed in because serving out that amount of content from a single site (can it be multicast?) isn't efficient. A small ISP with less than 5000 subs is a drop in the bucket compared to what large ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and TWC have to support. A single cable CMTS can support 5000 customers. Now imagine trying to manage a few hundred sites with 3-20 CMTS each. It becomes a logistical nightmare. Not everything scales nicely. Why don't you grow your ISP to support 5,000,000 subs? You can manage. The equipment can handle it, you just need more of it. It's like a housewife used to managing her house and family saying she'd have no problem managing Los Angeles. It's only bigger right? Taking care of two cars is easy, so opening up a chain of car rentals is no problem. For example, the 2010 tussle between Level3/Netflix and Comcast generated this tidbit: » gigaom.com/2010/12/07/a- ··· -3-spat/
Level3 already had 27 interconnect ports and then wanted 27-30 more. The 1 or 2 you're talking about it nothing, Comcast provided 3x that for free. These guys are dealing with 30x your "1-2 ports" that for a interconnect to a single business. To me that sounds like a network redesign request. More details of that spat can be found here: » corporate.comcast.com/co ··· -disputeComcast has many, many business customers on direct interconnects they have to deal with. Most businesses don't just have twice the capacity they currently have just sitting around unused hoping someone will pay for it. They have what they need plus 10-20% percentage more to cover normal growth. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
BlueC
Member
2013-Sep-13 6:31 pm
Re: Throttling?Uhhh... maybe because bandwidth becomes much cheaper on higher volume commitments? Just like everything else in business.
Do you know how tough it is, margin-wise, being a smaller ISP compared to a larger one?
When you have millions of subs, the baseline cost is spread extremely thin. Everything from engineers to equipment.
Comcast more than likely operates a very heavy-duty CMTS that services a large region. Their margins are quite good and their financial statements back that up. Certainly better than what a small ISP could achieve.
I find it hard to believe that Comcast is drowning in expenses over their subscribers. They make a decent margin and that's proven. The Netflix peering scenario would reduce their costs, but it's a threat to their business model (of which going against consumer demand).
Again, all they'd need to do is allow Netflix to drop in their servers and they'd be set. No need for any upgrades on their peering or anything else, other than peering with Netflix for the overnight content fill (which is around 5gbps per cluster). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
to DocDrew
said by DocDrew:A small ISP with less than 5000 subs is a drop in the bucket compared to what large ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, and TWC have to support. A single cable CMTS can support 5000 customers. Now imagine trying to manage a few hundred sites with 3-20 CMTS each. It becomes a logistical nightmare. Not everything scales nicely. Why don't you grow your ISP to support 5,000,000 subs? You can manage. The equipment can handle it, you just need more of it. If it doesn't scale, then the obvious solution is to break your one company into 10,000 smaller companies that can. Everything that I read about says it gets easier the bigger you are, it just takes more planning so you move a bit slower, but over all efficiency goes up, meaning better margins. said by DocDrew:To me that sounds like a network redesign request Sounds like it was improperly designed in the first place. If history has taught us anything, it's that every couple of years, something comes along and pushes technology almost to its breaking point, right before something comes along to save us. Most people plan for this in their infrastructure. They over-provision in the understanding that they may need a bit of breathing room with older tech before the new tech comes in. Comcast et al, didn't do that. They just treated the Internet like a cash cow, wasting money, and now people are actually attempting to use what Comcast claims to be selling, and Comcast is calling foul. Level 3 did offer to pay for the equipment cost of those ports. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Bengie25 |
to BlueC
said by BlueC:Netflix only requires 2x 10gbps ports. The larger ISPs are rolling out 100gbps+ connectivity these days. 10gbps is not that expensive, even smaller ISPs can afford 10gbps ports. At the time of the last L3 and Comcast conflict that blew-up, Level 3 was asking for 27 10gb ports. OpenConnect should help a lot since they can put the caching closer to the users instead of a few central peering points. Maybe if Netflix had OpenConnect back then, this whole Comcast issue wouldn't have been much of an issue, but now that it's started, Comcast wants to spread FUD about the "lack of bandwidth" and they will do anything to win their argument. | |
|
| | | | | | KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
1 recommendation |
to DocDrew
said by DocDrew:said by BlueC:Comcast benefits from this inbound traffic, since their users are requesting it and those said users pay Comcast to receive the traffic. Not all Comcast customers are Netflix customers, but Netflix customers are the ones requesting it and those said users pay Netflix to deliver the traffic. Netflix should pay for the bandwidth they need to deliver. Comcast rarely refuses a paying customer. Netflix does pay, They do not get links to their servers for free. | |
|
| | | | | batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ |
to BlueC
said by BlueC:Just as Comcast is more than a carrier.
I don't see the whole outbound/inbound argument being relative anymore. Comcast benefits from this inbound traffic, since their users are requesting it and those said users pay Comcast to receive the traffic. It comes down to Netflix wanting free hosting from others that they pay Level 3 for. When one "peer" sends five times more than thy accept they are no longer "peers", they are buyers and sellers. The new "peering" agreement between Comcast and Level 3 address this in a complicated way using distance as well as volume. quote:
Level 3 has spent several months pushing other Internet companies to adopt a cost-sharing model that values traffic crossing connection points based on the distance it travels as well as the amount of data that passes over those links. That model benefits Level 3, which operates the fiber-optic cables that carry information across long distances.
Under that arrangement, Level 3 only pays fees in the rare cases that traffic is "out of balance" based on those criteria, said Mark Taylor, vice president for media and IP services at the company. "That pricing mechanism is just a backstop," he said.
There appears to be a cabal of Netflix apologist who think we just fell off the turnip truck; "peering" agreements are made in secret and posters to this forum who say they know obviously don't. | |
|
| | | | | |
••••••
|
| | | | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
to batterup
said by batterup:With Level 3 being more than a carrier, being a CDN also makes them a host; a host that charges Netflex and others to host their servers.
Peer means equal or like, when one, Level 3, dumps five times the traffic on Comcast as Comcast dumps on Level 3 that is not equal. B.T.W. Netflex cannot be a peer, equal, as they don't own an inch of glass. Level3 isn't hosting servers from Netflix. So that is wrong. No, you're making an assumption. There are plenty of large networks that do not enforce any traffic ratios with peering. If Comcast didn't want the traffic then get out of the ISP business and get rid of those pesky users requesting the traffic. Netflix owning a network is irrelevant and there are tons of businesses that don't own large networks that are involved with peering. | |
|
| | | | |
•••• |
| | | | Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
to batterup
Level 3 is a Tier 1, you typically don't pay anyone anything because they are the Internet.
Level 3 was willing to cold-route Netflix to drop off the data as close as possible AND was willing to pay for the ports.
Because Level 3 was willing to peer, that also means that Comcast could off-load data to be routed onto Level 3's network.
It's like free bandwidth for Comcast. | |
|
| DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
1 edit |
to Morac
A very good sign that Netflix policy and network config is really behind much of the numbers and their average is when you look at the graph and see several lines moving in lock-step month after month. The graphs show several ISPs or countries all have slower speeds between December 2012 and January 2013; and then again in the last month. Between those 2 periods most of them went up the same average amount. Whether it's ISPs or countries for several of them to have their averages change at the same rate and amount is caused by Netflix. Individual line changes would be due to something much closer to the endpoint, the ISP, it's individual peering, or something like that. | |
|
| |
•••••• |
| | |
to Morac
I experience the same thing on my uVerse account.
As a matter of fact just the other day I was trying to watch something that wouldnt even get to 1mbps on netflix and constantly buffering. Yet my speed test showed all was good and Amazon still worked great. | |
|
| | 34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON |
34764170 (banned)
Member
2013-Sep-12 5:16 pm
Re: Throttling?Heh. AT&T.. not surprising. My ISP has no problem with Netflix no matter what the bit rate and their customers receive the SuperHD / 3D content too. | |
|
|
2 recommendations |
setUfree to Morac
Anon
2013-Sep-13 5:05 pm
to Morac
» www.skytide.com/blog/35- ··· c-2.htmlGo to time slot 10:20 This is an interesting fact based analysis which demonstrated •Netflix Open Connect may deliver more traffic than all CDNs combined by 2014. •Putting Open Connect in your network will increase ISP traffic levels (and costs) by 20-30% This is more than "a few 10G" connections and those "free servers" don't sound very free. Sounds more like Netflix wants to shift all their future costs to the ISPs vs paying for it themselves as they do today. Do we get a discount on the $8/month when this happens or just an increase in our broadband costs as the costs shift? | |
|
| | Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
Re: Throttling?That video is totally worth watching
Awesome share! Thanks setUfree! | |
|
| | | Bengie25 |
to setUfree
said by Anon80:Putting Open Connect in your network will increase ISP traffic levels (and costs) by 20-30% You're doing it wrong if internal ISP traffic causes operational costs to increase. Just wait for Sony's 80mb/s 4k video streaming service. ISPs are going to love that. | |
|
1 recommendation |
I am now moving to Denmark.I think this is amazing ! I am moving to Denmark now because they get the quickest Netflix speeds. | |
|
| |
Simon707
Anon
2013-Sep-12 2:21 pm
pop density my "behind", socialist state FTWAnd once again despite low pop density, the socialist countries of the upper european regions still rules the chart while the capitalists flounders. | |
|
 GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
Guspaz
MVM
2013-Sep-16 5:14 pm
Canada?Once again, Netflix ignores their second largest customer-base by excluding Canada from these rankings. | |
|
|
|
