Comcast XFINITY → Request Thread: Netflix SuperHD/Open Connect

Good faith effort? Good public relations to current and prospective new customers? I'm not sure as the technologies are above my level of training but I really do hope Comcast gets on board quickly so we can all start seeing Super HD streaming.

Well Netflix has an open peering policy (you don't have to host a cache) and they're located at most of the North American IXs.

It could just be equally argued that some of the large ISPs (w/ closed peering policies) are using their eyeballs to double dip and charge significant cash for peering.

*sigh* I'm pulling Netflix from Level3 tonight and can't maintain an HD stream...but no problem getting 36Mbps down to the nearest Comcast server =/

Help me understand something

ISP blocking Netflix SuperHD = Net-Neutrality Violation
Netflix blocking SuperHD from ISP customers = ???

Netflix can, and has, delivered 1080p for a while now and suddenly they won't offer it to their customers unless ISPs give them colo and routers? Why are they entitled to special treatment over competitors? They tried this before with DVDs »consumerist.com/2013/01/ ··· he-usps/

Will YouTube, Amazon and others follow suit and start blocking unless they get to move out of rackspace and equinix requiring ISPs to provide the free hosting and free 10G dedicated pipes?

They are not necessarily blocking 1080p. The current max is still 1080p in most cases, but more compressed than what they will allow over Open Connect.

They are blocking. Other's seem to be able to deliver HD+ video services. Why should OpenConnect get special treatment?

Netflix looks great to me on my 37" Sharp LCD.

ISP network/equipment capability.
It's not blocking if something doesn't work/can't be used due to low bandwidth i.e. don't expect HD streams over dialup, even if you were willing to wait they wouldn't serve what 99.9999% would agree to be an unsatisfactory user experience.

I understand your point, but it is legit for them to protect their reputation, and not serve any connection which might make their service look bad.

It is blocking when it is done for business/leverage reasons and not technical reasons.

Technically this will work with any CDN out there to most broadband users.

Difference is Netflix has an open-peering policy. Comcast does not. If you peer through any public IX you get Open Connect.

What Netflix didn't say is that their v6 network is all via Open Connect and includes paid v6 transit.

^this.

So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.

Again, where are they blocking you?

Blocking is the wrong way to look at it.

It's similar to the media companies that take down channels during negotiations to get you call up your cable / satellite company to threaten to cancel. The play is always to hold the downstream subscriber hostage to get the multichannel operator to make a deal they otherwise would be incredibly hesitant to make.

In this case, Netflix is using a carrot instead of the stick. Hey -- call up your ISP and ask them why they aren't on OpenConnect so you can get this SUPER COOL FANCY HD! It's completely free, and it even has "Open" right there in the name so you know it's a good community thing like opensource software.

Peering is all about connections between network operators that allow the downstream customers of each respective network to connect. Carriers like Cogent have to operate a large network with many downstream customers to gather up all that traffic to transmit to customers of Comcast/TimeWarner/etc. The equation tends to self-balance because the scale of operating such a large infrastructure limits how much you're going to exchange.

This, of course, all goes sideways when you talk about massive content engines as part of a CDN. Compared to operating a vast network, to stand up a CDN at major carrier neutral facilities is pennies to $20 bills. Servers are cheap, 10gig server interfaces are cheap, and LAN switches to transport bits within a single building are ridiculously cheap.

Comcast got into this spat a couple years ago with Level(3) when they wanted to dump an extra 100+Gbps into Comcast's network as part of their existing SFI agreement. This approach appears to be even worse for ISPs. Not only do they tie up ports at their major peering locations to a single upstream source (Netflix), but for their trouble Netflix will dump more bits onto their network than if they hadn't connected up in the first place.

I want you to let me use your car for free; as a bonus I'll always return it with the tank empty. For your trouble, however, I'll give all your friends rides and tell them what a great guy you are. Clearly you come out on the winning end of this arrangement.

Thanks, I was waiting for the car analogy. Pretty much sums it up.

hmm... So if the Internet is going the Classic TV model, Netflix passes through all their expensive infrastructure, facilities, etc cost. Sort of a required "fee" for the privilege of new Netflix content. The ISP in turn is passing through these new costs to ALL subscribers (not just Netflix users).

This is kinda like the ESPN model where all users pay for the "channel" or content, whether you watch it or not

I can see a lot of content guys LOVING this model and shifting their growing infrastructure costs to ISPs while spreading it out to all customers.

Not sure how this plays out however in the long run. I wonder what a-la-cart advocates think about this.

Thinking about this strictly as an end user, I now think I agree with the hostage analogy, we are being used as hostages in order to get deals done.

The way I see it I pay Comcast for a faster connection, I pay Netflix for a subscription, I should be able to get the same thing anyone else can get that has the same speed and subscription.

There's an article about Netflix's "Open Connect" on the LRC site today:

TW Cable Slams Netflix's 'Super HD' Policy
By Jeff Baumgartner, Light Reading Cable - January 17, 2013
»www.lightreading.com/int ··· 40146475

It's ludicrous to use the hostage model in this situation. Netflix is providing an incentive to ISPs to provide their consumers (often who are tied to a monopoly cable provider) what we subscribed for in the first place: an *internet* service.

Public peering should be a requirement for net neutrality. Comcast doesn't do it. That simple.

»www.comcast.com/peering/

I'll just leave this here.

Practically speaking, however, peering of networks and getting interfaces to simply dump traffic onto a network are different things.

AFAIK, selective SFI != public peering, but let me know if I'm off base!

You're viewing this all wrong.

As a consumer I am paying Comcast for transit. They should be providing paid transit and offer settlement free peering at large at IX points (where practical). You can argue about interfaces and traffic ratios as what should be considered reasonable for a port cost (maybe 10G minimum).

They can also be selective in requirements and still be open. (eg. must peer with us in each region to avoid, route policy via MEDs, etc).

Why should Comcast feel the need to make money on my transit and then turn around and make money on my eyeballs. That's essentially what they're doing with such a selective peering policy.

One more thing, having a closed peering policy is actually makes my transit worse. For example, v6 transit often sucks for me because Comcast won't peer with HE or OCCAID directly.

Edit: Please don't make the argument that Comcast is a Tier 1 so it's okay that they have a closed peering policy. Not even close to a tier 1.

Right. You're paying for a connection to the Internet. Netflix is not making their high bitrate service available to the Internet at large; it's only available if you engage in a private connection to them.They're playing carrier just like everyone else. Verizon charges DSL and FiOS subscribers for their connection, and Verizon sells transit services because they operate their own backhaul network as well.The Internet has never been about optimized paths -- from the onset the primary driving factor was cost. Direct peering may result better performance, but from a business standpoint that isn't a consideration. If it's cheaper, you peer. If not, continue to leverage your transit providers.Bringing up the tiering system is a joke anyway; it hasn't been relevant for almost a decade now.