| reply to espaeth
Re: 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. |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:I just don't understand why any broadband provider would sign up for this.
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. |
|
|
|
johnnn
join:2007-01-25
Ypsilanti, MI | *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 =/ |
|
1 edit | reply to johnnn
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/2013/01/11/court···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? |
|
andyrossPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL | 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. |
|
| said by andyross: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? |
|
 JimThePCGuyFormerly known as schja01.Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL | reply to johnnn
Netflix looks great to me on my 37" Sharp LCD.
 |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller: They are blocking. Other's seem to be able to deliver HD+ video services. Why should OpenConnect get special treatment?
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. |
|
whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| said by devnuller: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. |
|
johnnn
join:2007-01-25
Ypsilanti, MI | said by whfsdude:said by devnuller: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. |
|
| reply to whfsdude
So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model. |
|
 pflogBueller? Bueller?Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA
kudos:3 | said by devnuller:So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.
Again, where are they blocking you?
--
"I drank what?" -Socrates |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to devnuller
said by devnuller:So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.
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. |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA
kudos:3 | said by espaeth: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.
--
"I drank what?" -Socrates |
|
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth:said by devnuller:So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.
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. 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.
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to johnnn
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. |
|
 telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to johnnn
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/internet-vi···40146475 |
|
johnnn
join:2007-01-25
Ypsilanti, MI | 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. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
1 edit | said by johnnn: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. |
|
