dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19
share rss forum feed

fender

join:2007-07-23
Vancouver, BC
reply to Dominnanaimo

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

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.


ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2

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

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
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.


ravenchilde

join:2011-04-01
kudos:2

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.


kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3

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.



spock

join:2012-07-08

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
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.