dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
33
share rss forum feed

Cdnexpert

join:2013-01-13
08815
reply to Dominnanaimo

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

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."


spock

join:2012-07-08
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.



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?

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.

xtachx

join:2005-11-19
canada
Reviews:
·voip.ms

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.