| reply to xtachx
Re: Shaw no support new Super HD from Netflix, boo! Xtachx
I have the same viewpoint as you. Read one post above yours.
Regarding the 30% netflix traffic, i have heard in passing that some ISP's do meet that. That could be what comcasts utilization is  Again when posting i am not specifically talking about shaw and generalizing covering all ISP's. |
|
| reply to Dominnanaimo
Seriously, I don't give a toss about why or who or whatever. I just want Shaw to provide the very best service and right now I can't get Netflix in Super HD. And they're silent on why this is so.
Meanwhile, the list of other providers offering Netflix in Super HD continues to grow. Customers have confirmed the following to be providing it:
TELUS
Teksavvy in the GTA
Rogers
MTS
Bell FibreOp in Halifax
Novus
Why not Shaw? Why no explanation? Shaw is not just an ISP, it's also one of the largest content providers in the country. 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. |
|
|
|
ilianame
join:2002-06-05
Burnaby, BC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Shaw
| What is it that you are going to DO about it? |
|
| reply to Dominnanaimo
I don't think any cable company has signed with netflix within canada.
All those customers reporting success are getting that message through unblock.us
You might as well put shaw on that list since customers have reported it working with unblock.us, however that is a VPN like service.
And now time warner has started the fight, and others will join that fight.
»www.multichannel.com/cable-opera···s/141261 |
|
| 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.
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.
If you have anyone to blame, blame netflix for making that change. You do realize that an ISP does not habe to peer or accept joining open connect. They are not beng anti competetive, or breaking net neutrality rules. Netflix is no longer protected by net neutrality with this move.
»arstechnica.com/business/2013/01···uper-hd/
According to the above article, there are others that share the same view that what netflix is doing is wrong.
"At least one advocacy group agrees with Time Warner's position. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Communications Liberty and Innovation Project—which typically opposes network neutrality requirements—accused Netflix of trying to "coerce ISPs into paying for a free Internet fast lane for Netflix content."
With its 'Open Connect' model, Netflix is withholding content from the customers of ISPs that decline to accede to its demands," the group said. "Though the details of its demands are unknown, it appears Netflix is requiring that ISPs 'peer' with them or pay for the installation of Netflix equipment inside their networks as well as the ongoing costs of operating that equipment." |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| 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.
OTA and boxee box is all we need in our house.
I get 10 HD channels channels with the basics and the boxee for netflix and iptv network channels. Top that off with Teksavvy supplying us with truly unlimited bandwidth. Heck I'm 40 years old and have cut the cord, does shaw really think the up and coming generations are wanting to be tied down with a massive monthly cable subscription to get the few channels they want. |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
| 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 |
|
Reviews:
 ·Mobilicity
 ·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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
| 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| and its just a coincidence that the all the cable companies have an issues with netflix and the superhd? |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
