Topic 'Re: Shaw no support new Super HD from Netflix, boo!' in forum 'Shaw' - dslreports.com

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

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:37:02 EDT

dazman09 posted : 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

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

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:19:55 EDT

kevinds posted : 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.

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

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:17:46 EDT

dazman09 posted : Says it on one of the pages in the link I posted. I think it also says a 'minimum of 10Gbps'.

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

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:11:47 EDT

kevinds posted : 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.

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

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:45:37 EDT

dazman09 posted : 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.

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

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 02:04:10 EDT

ravenchilde posted : Amazon is likely at a lot of the IX's.

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

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:56:35 EDT

kevinds posted : 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.

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

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:01:07 EDT

ravenchilde posted :

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.

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

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:35:46 EDT

kevinds posted : 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.

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

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:43:51 EDT

dazman09 posted :

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.

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

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:33:59 EDT

anon posted : »support.unblock-us.com/customer/···w=782207

About unblock-us and shaw

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

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:51:08 EDT

anon posted : Now supported by Unblock US

»support.unblock-us.com/customer/···netflix-

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

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 02:37:54 EDT

Jopon posted : Shaws shitty service can't even keep me connected to 1080i netflix, how could they ever hope to stream 1080p or 3d.

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:08:36 EDT

ravenchilde posted :

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. :)

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:14:05 EDT

fender posted : They aren't insisting on a hosted cache.

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

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:08:12 EDT

ravenchilde posted :

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?

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:55:34 EDT

fender posted :

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.

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:50:58 EDT

fender posted : 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.

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:56:50 EDT

spock posted : and its just a coincidence that the all the cable companies have an issues with netflix and the superhd?

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:39:33 EDT

kevinds posted : 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.

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

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 02:07:02 EDT

ravenchilde posted : 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.

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

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:51:34 EDT

kevinds posted : 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.

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

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:25:59 EDT

ravenchilde posted :

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

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

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:19:58 EDT

fender posted : 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.

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

Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:47:51 EDT

komal posted :

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.

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

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:31:50 EDT

anon posted :

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.

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

Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:36:02 EDT

xtachx posted :

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.

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

Sat, 19 Jan 2013 01:09:48 EDT

spock posted : 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

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

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:45:05 EDT

zod5000 posted :

said by spock:

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

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:44:15 EDT

spock posted :

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?

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

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 22:42:49 EDT

spock posted : 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.

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

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:06:48 EDT

Cdnexpert posted :

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."

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

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 20:55:00 EDT

Cdnexpert posted : 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

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

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:51:32 EDT

ilianame posted :

said by Dominnanaimo:

That's something I can't tolerate.

What is it that you are going to DO about it?

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

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:50:32 EDT

Dominnanaimo posted : 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.

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

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:14:26 EDT

Cdnexpert posted : 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.

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

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:36:00 EDT

xtachx posted :

said by Cdnexpert:

Last point i forgot to mention is the actual utilization.

If netflix accounts for 30% of an ISP overall traffic, if they launched this, super HD is double the average bitrate. There is a potential that 60% of network traffic would be netflix which translates to congestion. Also, if your ISP has data caps, look out consumer this isn't in your best interest.

Having that additional traffic not on the ISP network is actually better for consumers as there is less congestion and data caps won't easily get hit.

You see Shaw does not care about reducing 30% load on their backbone - that backbone is not fully utilised anyways and they are upgradingit to 100gbps. This is CHEAPER than hosting a netflix CDN.

Secondly, dont get me wrong, but why does netflix want this to be free again? Netflix is not an essential service for an ISP to pay for. They are asking Shaw etc to pay for the hosting costs. Why? Why would anyone in their right minds accept this deal? If you run a company, you would not want a deal which causes you losses. Netflix wants your ISP to pay for you to get better quality content?!! Which planet do they live in? Which ISP would agree to such a thing?

Telus went into this agreement because they benefit from it too. Their backbone and peering isnt as big as Shaw's and they dont have a good VOD experiance on their TV system. Shaw benefits nothing from it. And fourth, if my connection can support it, why doesnt netflix give me a super HD stream anyways?

Netflix needs to pay for the hosting costs (rack space, power, cooling and personnel) before this will happen. If they want to save transit costs they can also host it on iWeb and peer to TORIX.

quote:
If netflix accounts for 30% of an ISP overall traffic

Sorry to break your heart, but it probably isnt. Every person I know who tried netflix canada, either bought an unblock-us subscription or disconnected netflix. (incl me, this month is my last). Netflix canada isnt that great - it need much more content to be a viable alternative.

Cant get rid of cable - need that for the News, and international channels. (Can get the rest of the shows from youtube)

Netflix needs more content and live streams such as the news and weather to actually be able to replace cable. Sadly, cable stays for now. :-(
--
Bell Canada: It is �Preposterous" that consumers should get content they want on their cellphones.

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

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 05:51:48 EDT

Cdnexpert posted : Since i can't quote properly, i will try my best to respond accordingly. Also their may be a duplicate post as the one from the anonymous account didn't seem to go through so i joined. Here are the responses below.

First response was intended to state that the negotiation on the peering transit links are low in cost for isp's like comcast, rogers, shaw and others. Why would these isp's decide to install a cdn cache that won't add any benefit when they are already pay next to nothing. If you look at the overall business of network links, congestion, private vod, over the top vod a netflix CDN caching node would do more harm than good when you compare what little you may save on transit. Some ISP's would rather pay the transit costs than let netflix in. And for your information your first statement is far fetched stating that negotiating won't matter once netflix places all their traffic on their own cdn. If they did that ISP would welcome it as now they don't need to carry their traffic. Then they have the option to cut netflix out completely since it doesn't break net neutrality and netflix would be hurting themselves ;). That is why your statement is bogus and they will always have connectivity for off-net traffic and on net being their own cdn.

Second statement I agree that once they reach a certain size that they would want to do their own thing. That being said, the way they are delivering the message is not about the experience but focused on reducing costs.

Many ISP's have CDN's that do both on-net and off-net. Not only that, they also do transparent caching built in for http traffic. I would say your statement is partially false as it isn't just the ISPs own content on their own CDN's. It is mixed content.

Source:
Open Connect is a single-purpose Content Distribution Network, and by shifting to Open Connect, from using third-party commercial CDNs, we are able to save money and keep consumer prices low.

Third statement is completely False. Fact is that ISP's CDn's provide both on-net and off-net connectivity. If a customer watches live TV on an ipad through a connection other than their own, they would use an offnet connection through akamai as an example. Cogaco currently runs this type of cdn architecture. I assume shaw go also uses akamai for offnet.

4th statement i would say consumers will welcome anything that brings them value. Redbox is looking to launch an online system to compete with netflix, and other services can compete with netflix. It is all based on the content and price. If someone else comes along and offers newer/better content at a great price, netflix consumers will look at other options.

5th statement - the difference between peering with akamai, limelight they don't compete with any of the isp's core business. It enhances the internet experience. Google caches and akamai caches that exist in isp's networks don't hurt the isp. When has youtube ever taken away from tv/vod sales? Case and Point. When you have a company offering the same content as the isp, that is where there is no benefit to the isp.

6th statement - Netflix didn't make the statement that the whole initiative is free, but to a customer reading what their ISP has to do, this insinuates to a customer that there is no cost to the ISP.

Source: ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network.

Again point in statement 5 response you can't compare akamai and google caches to netflix. Completely different. Akamai and google sends many things from the internet. Some examples are: software updates, game updates, webpages, video etc.

Netflix only caches their video content, which as mentioned previously competes with content the ISP is offering and selling.

7th statement- ludicrous that you think ISP's are not upgrading their infrastructure. Telus spent a huge amount to upgrade their network, shaw is doing the same with upgrading to 100 gbps backbone. In no way are these companies just sitting back and not ugrading their infrastructure. If docsis 3.1 becomes a finalized standard, that can bring Speeds that exceed fiber (1gbps) over coax. The backbone would need to be upgraded to handle future technologies and that is why they have been doing those upgrades.

Source: »www.cedmagazine.com/news/2011/11···-network
Source: »www.lightreading.com/docsis/docs···40135059

Agree caps are not in the interest of consumers, but if they all unify and enforce caps what choices does a consumer have. If an isp offers unlimited bandwidth packages that are affordable, or no caps, consumers will choose those options over companies that enforce caps that are unreasonable.

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

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:42:20 EDT

rustydusty posted : Wow, just wow. How is this smuck still here?

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

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:57:21 EDT

brad posted :

said by Cdnexpert :

If netflix accounts for 30% of an ISP overall traffic, if they launched this, super HD is double the average bitrate. There is a potential that 60% of network traffic would be netflix which translates to congestion. Also, if your ISP has data caps, look out consumer this isn't in your best interest.

The congestion is there because the ISPs are being lazy about upgrading and wanting to milk their infrastructure. Caps have no justification. They have nothing to do with network traffic management and everything to do with a mind set of how people use their Internet connection and ripping people off. Caps in the first place are not in their best interest.

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

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:54:58 EDT

brad posted :

said by Cdnexpert :

Actually most big isps are not all over this. In fact, some isp's actually trialed the cache out and removed it because it does not benefit them. It is not in the best interests of companies like shaw, rogers, comcast, charter, time warner, cogeco. Companies like telus, bell, cablevision who may not have the best peering arrangements will see a benefit for having the cache and can bring down costs on transit. It is well known that according to netflix canadian stats, that shaw and rogers are top providers when it comes to average bitrate served to netflix customers. Telus not so much, so it makes sense to better that experience. In addition, telus doesn't have a strong competing product as their vod store isn't that great. Big isps actually have negotiating power with the likes of Level 3, akamai, limelight than a smaller ISP which translates to costs being lower.

My comment was about peering, not the appliance. Whether Shaw has a competing product is mainly irrelevant, it's not Netflix. I've used VOD offerings from most of these providers and it is mostly awful at best. Big ISPs negotiating power with those commercial CDN players is irrelevant when Netflix migrates all of the traffic on to their own CDN. Numerous other big web properties have done the same thing. It is only logical to do so once they've become as big as they are.

said by Cdnexpert :

I must say its interesting with netflix's approach. Most isps have their own cdn and this is netflix's attempt to save money from the likes of L3, akamai and limelight that is killing them in essentially hosting costs using their caches. If an isp already has caches, why doesn't netflix work with the isp. Seems that netflix doesn't want to share any money with isp's, and now l3, limelight and akamai. And eveyone recognizes that the cache is not just for superhd and 3d content. Once they have their foot in the door, all netflix traffic will be served from cache, which saves them money.

Of course the cache isn't just about Super HD / 3D. It's been around for quite awhile already. That's pretty obvious. Level 3 and Limelight are not killing Netflix at all. It is about reducing the cost to deliver the bits to their customers. Any sane business would understand once they get to a certain size it makes sense to invest the time and money to build their own infrastructure. The ISPs CDNs are for their own content. Trying to use them makes absolutely no sense. It's the Netflix CDN, not a mishmash of other CDNs which they have no control over. Of course it saves them money. That's the whole point.

said by Cdnexpert :

In all applications, it is known that isp's don't gain any monetary value from netflix at all. If netflix is bringing down costs, why don't they utilize an ISP's already built cdn and share some of that dough they are saving?

They're building their own CDN. That doesn't make any sense. The ISPs own CDNs are for their own content. Level 3, Akamai, Limelight and other CDNs do not use the ISPs own CDNs. Why would Netflix be any different?

said by Cdnexpert :

I can see this going down as follows:

1) Bigger ISP's will flip netflix the bird and band together to build a netflix like service. Would be way cheaper to implement since cdn federation allows ISP's to join their CDN's together. Plus they already have great relationships with studios to negotiate content.

OR
2) Netflix and ISP's negotiaite something that brings monetary value

#1 is pretty dumb and I doubt anyone really wants this. You can have all the infrastructure in the world but tithout very strong branding like Netflix it is doomed.

#2 is pretty debatable.

said by Cdnexpert :

This is just a prediction, but i am betting that eventually the super HD service will be turned on regardless of joining open connect. If you can get 25-50 mbps speeds on your internet package, why can't you stream a measly 5/7 mbps? Why are customers not raging at netflix knowing that most isps will not cooperate with them so make it work with how things are now. This is all a ploy to get their foot deeper into isp's networks and i bet they will eventually turn it on every where, especially if bigger isp's don't join open connect. Netflix can only hope that isp's join a statement that was made by the ceo.

It's not any more of a ploy than peering with Akamai, Limelight or other major CDNs. Netflix is not forcing the appliances on ISPs. It can benefit them but it is not a requirement for this service. The appliance tends to be used in situations where the ISP cannot peer with Netflix in markets without peering like Canadian providers that do not have their own networks extending down to American peering points or larger ISPs that want to put the appliances deeper into their networks.

said by Cdnexpert :

Lastly, for them to make a statement that its free for the isp is BS. Rack, cooling, power, optics all cost money. Losing a small % of customers may still be cheaper for isp's than to let netflix closer to the edge and enhance their service. Something to think about.

No one has said the whole initiative is free. The appliance is free and that's it. This is no different for Google caches or Akamai caches.

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

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:02:14 EDT

anon posted : Last point i forgot to mention is the actual utilization.

If netflix accounts for 30% of an ISP overall traffic, if they launched this, super HD is double the average bitrate. There is a potential that 60% of network traffic would be netflix which translates to congestion. Also, if your ISP has data caps, look out consumer this isn't in your best interest.

Having that additional traffic not on the ISP network is actually better for consumers as there is less congestion and data caps won't easily get hit.

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

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:43:19 EDT

anon posted : Actually most big isps are not all over this. In fact, some isp's actually trialed the cache out and removed it because it does not benefit them. It is not in the best interests of companies like shaw, rogers, comcast, charter, time warner, cogeco. Companies like telus, bell, cablevision who may not have the best peering arrangements will see a benefit for having the cache and can bring down costs on transit. It is well known that according to netflix canadian stats, that shaw and rogers are top providers when it comes to average bitrate served to netflix customers. Telus not so much, so it makes sense to better that experience. In addition, telus doesn't have a strong competing product as their vod store isn't that great. Big isps actually have negotiating power with the likes of Level 3, akamai, limelight than a smaller ISP which translates to costs being lower.

I must say its interesting with netflix's approach. Most isps have their own cdn and this is netflix's attempt to save money from the likes of L3, akamai and limelight that is killing them in essentially hosting costs using their caches. If an isp already has caches, why doesn't netflix work with the isp. Seems that netflix doesn't want to share any money with isp's, and now l3, limelight and akamai. And eveyone recognizes that the cache is not just for superhd and 3d content. Once they have their foot in the door, all netflix traffic will be served from cache, which saves them money.

In all applications, it is known that isp's don't gain any monetary value from netflix at all. If netflix is bringing down costs, why don't they utilize an ISP's already built cdn and share some of that dough they are saving?

I can see this going down as follows:

1) Bigger ISP's will flip netflix the bird and band together to build a netflix like service. Would be way cheaper to implement since cdn federation allows ISP's to join their CDN's together. Plus they already have great relationships with studios to negotiate content.

OR
2) Netflix and ISP's negotiaite something that brings monetary value

This is just a prediction, but i am betting that eventually the super HD service will be turned on regardless of joining open connect. If you can get 25-50 mbps speeds on your internet package, why can't you stream a measly 5/7 mbps? Why are customers not raging at netflix knowing that most isps will not cooperate with them so make it work with how things are now. This is all a ploy to get their foot deeper into isp's networks and i bet they will eventually turn it on every where, especially if bigger isp's don't join open connect. Netflix can only hope that isp's join a statement that was made by the ceo.

Lastly, for them to make a statement that its free for the isp is BS. Rack, cooling, power, optics all cost money. Losing a small % of customers may still be cheaper for isp's than to let netflix closer to the edge and enhance their service. Something to think about.

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

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 15:47:01 EDT

anon posted : Very, very simple you'll bust your caps in less than a week and pay overuse fees. There it is in a nutshell.

msg deleted

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 05:47:00 EDT

anon posted : deleted by a moderator

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

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:08:19 EDT

brad posted :

said by komal:

This isn't in the best interests of some ISPs as they lose traffic coming in which may mean less revenue or a more unbalanced relationship with peering partners.

Honestly, I doubt anybody will really care about this offering or bother actually telling their ISP to support Netflix.

Most ISPs will be all over this and this isn't exactly new. They've had their own CDN running for awhile now and it's very beneficial for most providers.

Honestly, then you're clueless.

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

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:05:10 EDT

brad posted :

said by kevinds:

Everything I see, seems to be about saving Netflix money.

Peer with the bigger ISPs, so that Netflix doesn't have to pay transit moving their data - and this won't necessarly help with poor quality due to poor speeds/congestion.

I'm courious how Netflix got into the Peering centers, and how many HD streaming customers it will take to saturate their connection.

It's about saving both sides money. Reducing the amount of transit required for the ISPs is reducing their cost of delivering those bits to the customer.

Netflix will peer with and/or provide the caching appliances to anyone that is able to peer with them at the appropriate locations and meets certain minimum traffic levels. It depends on where the speed/congestion issues are.

They got into the Internet exchanges just as every other ISP/hosting provider/service provider/CDN does. It's not as if there is a fixed limit to the amount of bandwidth they have. Just like everyone else they monitor their links and upgrade well in advance of the links being saturated.

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

Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:00:02 EDT

brad posted :

said by Branflakes :

I'd be more scared that Telus knows streaming Super HD Netflix is going to eat 5-6 times the bandwidth usage a current Netflix HD stream does coupled with them slashing bandwidth caps the $$$ signs must be an additional main reason for business profits.

Super HD streams at best consume 2 times the bandwidth, not 5-6 times.