dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
40
share rss forum feed


Cdnexpert

@76.73.41.x
reply to 34764170

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

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.



Cdnexpert

@204.45.134.x

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.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Cdnexpert

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.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Cdnexpert

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.
Expand your moderator at work

Cdnexpert

join:2013-01-13
08815
reply to 34764170

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

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.


xtachx

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

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.

Cdnexpert

join:2013-01-13
08815

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.