dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11313
share rss forum feed

dazman09

join:2010-10-28
reply to dazman09

Re: Shaw no support new Super HD from Netflix, boo!

Just noticed Shaw is now SuperHD ready. Saw the little SuperHD icon next to programs while using Apple TV.

You can verify by going to »signup.netflix.com/superhd

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to dazman09
it may be more efficient to install Open Connect appliances in one or more metro network areas. Typically, this makes sense for individual markets serving a population of 100,000 or more broadband subscribers.

Found on one of the Netflix pages, so that puts at least one 10 Gbps applicance in each city Shaw operates in?
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

dazman09

join:2010-10-28
reply to kevinds
Says it on one of the pages in the link I posted. I think it also says a 'minimum of 10Gbps'.

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
reply to dazman09
Where did you hear/read 10Gbps connections? I really don't think that 10 Gbps is fast enough for all of Shaw's Netflix traffic.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

dazman09

join:2010-10-28
reply to dazman09
Found a pretty cool site for details on Netflix OpenConnect for Super HD.

»signup.netflix.com/openconnect

They actually have hardware that can be placed in an ISP's data centers in addition to simple peering agreements. They want direct 10Gbps connections.

ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2
reply to kevinds
Amazon is likely at a lot of the IX's.

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to ravenchilde
My Amazon server is 3-4 hops later.

Perhaps Amazon just happens to be peered there as well. But Amazon has a big peering exchange in Virgina too.

ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2
reply to kevinds
said by kevinds:

vx.shawcable.net I believe is Amazon in Virginia.

That's just Virginia. Not necessarily amazon. There is an Internet exchange in Virginia.

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw

1 edit
reply to dazman09
The last article I read, Netflix was using Amazon for the transcoding, but their own CDN network.

If Amazon was doing the CDN, this whole peering relationship status wouldn't matter, from what I see, Shaw is already peered with Amazon. vx.shawcable.net I believe is Amazon in Virginia.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

dazman09

join:2010-10-28
reply to fender
said by fender:

They aren't insisting on a hosted cache.

They're asking ISP's to peer with the new open connect network at the exchange.

Yup, with all the mis-information and ignorance in this thread, this is about the only on-point post here. Netflix just wants a better connection directly to ISP's for this enhanced service. They are NOT asking ISP's to host hardware for them.

Jopon is complaining that Shaw can't even handle Netflix now.. its actually very likely that its not Shaw specifically, but how Shaw currently connects to Netflix. If this peering agreement were to happen, all users would likely see an improvement, not even considering 'SuperHD'.

Netflix actually uses Amazon S3 for the majority of its CDN. It may not be that Netflix is asking to peer with Netflix itself, but wants better connections to its CDN partners like Amazon (which would bode well for Shaw customers in general).

Also note, there are Youtube caching proxy servers on Shaws network as we speak. I *think* some are in Calgary. Its likely Google bought the servers and installed them, and maintains them. Shaw just gives them some space and a fiber connection. AFAIK.


Johnny82

@shawcable.net
reply to freezing


freezing

@shawcable.net
reply to Jopon

Jopon

join:2013-01-25
reply to Dominnanaimo
Shaws shitty service can't even keep me connected to 1080i netflix, how could they ever hope to stream 1080p or 3d.

ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2
reply to fender
said by fender:

They aren't insisting on a hosted cache.

They're asking ISP's to peer with the new open connect network at the exchange.

Yes. But technically that isn't needed.

fender

join:2007-07-23
Vancouver, BC
reply to ravenchilde
They aren't insisting on a hosted cache.

They're asking ISP's to peer with the new open connect network at the exchange.

ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2
reply to fender
said by fender:

Transit is cheaper than it used to be but usage has increased considerably.

There is a reason that companies like Akamai are so successful.

The "last mile" infrastructure for most of us has been well in place for a long time. My internet connection has improved dramatically in almost 10 years.

You realize Netflix could turn on SuperHD without requiring this hosted cache? Why are they insisting on a hosted cache?

fender

join:2007-07-23
Vancouver, BC
reply to ravenchilde
said by ravenchilde:

I think Time Warner opened a complaint in the US about Net Neutrality and how it is 'unfair' for Netflix to discriminate their new Super HD and only offer it to partners. :P

I've been a Time Warner customer. It's not the best company to look at for defense. They have been resting on a terrible infrastructure that they built with massive government subsidies in the late 90's and have just been raising fees yearly.

This is such a non-issue. Even BCNet has already peered with Netflix -- I have a green OpenConnect happy message on my machine at work.

fender

join:2007-07-23
Vancouver, BC

1 edit
reply to Dominnanaimo
Transit is cheaper than it used to be but usage has increased considerably.

There is a reason that companies like Akamai are so successful.

The "last mile" infrastructure for most of us has been well in place for a long time. My internet connection hasn't(*) improved dramatically in almost 10 years.

(*) Edit : Hasn't.


spock

join:2012-07-08
reply to kevinds
and its just a coincidence that the all the cable companies have an issues with netflix and the superhd?

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to ravenchilde
I agree with that. Last mile is the hardest to deal with when dealing with capacity issues.

This is about Netflix wanting to save money by not having to pay for transit their CDN uses, blocking content from ISP's users because they won't peer or pay for a few racks of hardware. 1/4 rack will not be enough equipment for pushing out say 30% of an ISPs traffic.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2
reply to kevinds
Kevin,

My point is that peering and transit are both inexpensive when compared to the last mile. Connecting in Internet exchanges on "cheap" routers/switches and pushing data fast doesn't cost insanely huge coin like folks are suggesting, definitely not enough to cause a large company to take this deal. Pipes from CMTS and DSLAM to home cost more, and push far less Mbps. The last mile is also usually what would determine the quality of a users connection.

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to fender
Peering isn't allways free though. Some companies will charge a lot to peer with them, one of the reasons transit can be cheaper.

Shaw does have a connection to one of the peering center's Netflix is in, in Seattle, but we don't have the information to know why they haven't peered with Netflix.

Maybe the fiber to that center is near capacity already, maybe that line isn't fast enough for all Netflix traffic to flow through it.

It it is usually the outgoing traffic that costs money, incoming is usually free, for transit.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2
reply to fender
said by fender:

if cable companies peer and cuts the cost to deliver high quality netflix service to it's customers it has a harder time justifying charging netflix users more money for exceeding a predetermined data cap...

You do realize that peering and transit are extremely cheap compared to the cost of the last mile, right? There isn't really any reason for a cable company with a competing offering to make netflix perform better...

I think Time Warner opened a complaint in the US about Net Neutrality and how it is 'unfair' for Netflix to discriminate their new Super HD and only offer it to partners. :P

fender

join:2007-07-23
Vancouver, BC
reply to Dominnanaimo
if cable companies peer and cuts the cost to deliver high quality netflix service to it's customers it has a harder time justifying charging netflix users more money for exceeding a predetermined data cap.

If the cable company accepts some of the free 3U 100TB caching appliances from Netflix to almost completely wipe out the cost to deliver content to their customers (a half or quarter rack is a really minimal expense.. a little bit of electricity) they have even less justification for charging customers extra for the data.

It competes with their VoD services, it competes with their premium channel subscriptions, and while it would save them a pile of money on transit costs the MBA's have a tough time seeing things that way.

Of course there is always the possibility that they open the door to Netflix eventually blowing away anything they can offer and they see this as a step towards allowing them to more effectively out perform them.

We at the consumers mostly just get to suffer while people figure out how to get more money out of our pockets to deliver a service that should be as straightforward as electricity.

komal

join:2003-02-16
reply to dendenden
said by dendenden :

said by Dominnanaimo:

This issue is starting to make me think that Shaw will degrade my Netflix experience to further their own business interests. That's something I can't tolerate.

I am starting to notice Netflix takes a few minutes to load a movie. The progress bar just sits there (ps3). Then throughout the movie the quality diminishes often to the point where the picture becomes blurry and pixelated. Thats unacceptable.

I pay top dollar for the 100Mbps package and I expect the package to deliver top of the line performance in however I choose to utilize my broadband connection.

If Shaw chooses to play games I will gladly drop them and sign up to Telus or TeckSaavy and get a digital antenna so I can catch the news on TV in the mornings (about the only time I watch TV anyway). They will be out 200/mth if they don't fall in line with what we want.

You realize the poster you're quoting was posting a hypothetical, right?

Shaw isn't actually degrading Netflix's quality/connection.


dendenden

@shawcable.net
reply to Dominnanaimo
said by Dominnanaimo:

This issue is starting to make me think that Shaw will degrade my Netflix experience to further their own business interests. That's something I can't tolerate.

I am starting to notice Netflix takes a few minutes to load a movie. The progress bar just sits there (ps3). Then throughout the movie the quality diminishes often to the point where the picture becomes blurry and pixelated. Thats unacceptable.

I pay top dollar for the 100Mbps package and I expect the package to deliver top of the line performance in however I choose to utilize my broadband connection.

If Shaw chooses to play games I will gladly drop them and sign up to Telus or TeckSaavy and get a digital antenna so I can catch the news on TV in the mornings (about the only time I watch TV anyway). They will be out 200/mth if they don't fall in line with what we want.

xtachx

join:2005-11-19
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to zod5000
said by zod5000:

said by spock:

Another nail in shaws coffin. The stupidest thing they have done as a company was not enter the wireless market. The future is iptv and next big step will be iptv over lte. Unfortunately I think they will try and stifle innovation by buying up tv stations and limiting the way people access it.

In the long run I think TV channels will realize they could earn more revenue buy putting their channels online and having people watch them for free (thus gaining more ad revenue) than carriage fees. The downside of which is if every channel did broadcast for free on the internet, how would you ever gather a large enough view base. Free internet would be greatly diversified causing lower viewership of any particular channel. IE instead of a major network having regional channels, they might have to change to a national internet channel, so everyone tunes in and they can pull ratings and generate revenue.

In the short run how is IPTV offering better competion to Shaw. Shaw can multicast all their channels. Its great for homes with more than one tv because it doesn't require any more bandwidth. IPTV uses a specific amount of bandwidth per channel. It doubles and triples when you add a 2nd or 3rd tv. Due to the limits of DSL speed the quality is very compressed to try not to impact the internet speed.

I don't consider IPTV the same as internet tv, but IPTV (as dsl currently offers it) has some pretty big drawbacks.

Exactly. IPTV over LTE will also have the same drawbacks.
--
Bell Canada: It is “Preposterous" that consumers should get content they want on their cellphones.


spock

join:2012-07-08
reply to Dominnanaimo
I think the perhaps another major reason shaw and other cable providers do not want to do superhd is the node saturation that would come with it

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to spock
said by spock:

Another nail in shaws coffin. The stupidest thing they have done as a company was not enter the wireless market. The future is iptv and next big step will be iptv over lte. Unfortunately I think they will try and stifle innovation by buying up tv stations and limiting the way people access it.

In the long run I think TV channels will realize they could earn more revenue buy putting their channels online and having people watch them for free (thus gaining more ad revenue) than carriage fees. The downside of which is if every channel did broadcast for free on the internet, how would you ever gather a large enough view base. Free internet would be greatly diversified causing lower viewership of any particular channel. IE instead of a major network having regional channels, they might have to change to a national internet channel, so everyone tunes in and they can pull ratings and generate revenue.

In the short run how is IPTV offering better competion to Shaw. Shaw can multicast all their channels. Its great for homes with more than one tv because it doesn't require any more bandwidth. IPTV uses a specific amount of bandwidth per channel. It doubles and triples when you add a 2nd or 3rd tv. Due to the limits of DSL speed the quality is very compressed to try not to impact the internet speed.

I don't consider IPTV the same as internet tv, but IPTV (as dsl currently offers it) has some pretty big drawbacks.


spock

join:2012-07-08
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Cdnexpert
said by Cdnexpert:

said by Dominnanaimo:

This issue is starting to make me think that Shaw will degrade my Netflix experience to further their own business interests. That's something I can't tolerate.

Shaw doesn't degrade your service, if they did that would be a net neutrality issue. Congestion does not fall under that category as that isn't something that is on purpose.

I'm pretty sure shaw throttles upload when they see fit. Would that not be a degradation of service?