 Cole
join:2011-08-12
Sun Prairie, WI | Turn around is fair-play? Turn around is fair-play? | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Turn around is fair-play? It most certainly is.
I really love what Netflix is doing. Hopefully the "name-and-shame" strategy will embarrass large ISPs like Comcast into joining the Netflix network. As I'm one of the people who's paying for a fast enough connection, I'd love to be able to get the Netflix "super HD" stream. It would be nice to be able to get picture quality closer to Blu-ray and better audio quality - could allow me to drop a service tier from the 5 Blu-rays out at a time plan that I currently subscribe to.
Gotta make effective use of that broadband... 
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: NO tax increases / 15% cuts across-the-board / defunding of all ObamaCare-enacted programs. | |
|
 MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1 | How accurate is it? The fastest ISP according to Netflix is Google at about 3.5 Mbps. I had 3 Mbps with Comcast 10 years ago.
Most ISPs are now at least 12 Mbps, so why is Netflix saying most are under 2 Mbps? | |
|
|  RickNYPremium
join:2000-11-02
Manorville, NY | Re: How accurate is it? said by Morac:The fastest ISP according to Netflix is Google at about 3.5 Mbps. I had 3 Mbps with Comcast 10 years ago.
Most ISPs are now at least 12 Mbps, so why is Netflix saying most are under 2 Mbps?
Thats the average Netflix stream rate for each ISP -- not the ISP's speed.. Netflix doesn't use a huge amount of bandwidth when streaming to you - but if you have a crappy connection, you notice it. | |
|
| |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: How accurate is it? said by RickNY:said by Morac:The fastest ISP according to Netflix is Google at about 3.5 Mbps. I had 3 Mbps with Comcast 10 years ago.
Most ISPs are now at least 12 Mbps, so why is Netflix saying most are under 2 Mbps?
Thats the average Netflix stream rate for each ISP -- not the ISP's speed.. Netflix doesn't use a huge amount of bandwidth when streaming to you - but if you have a crappy connection, you notice it. And that average stream speed is affected by decisions made by users on video quality. Netflix lets users choose less than top quality in order to reduce the amount of bytes transferred(caps make users choose lower quality in some cases). So some of their rankings may be suspect based on variables not related to the ISPs ability to deliver high speeds.
--
Senate - get off your butts and actually create a budget that has spending cuts 3x the amount of tax increases like you promised.
| |
|
| | |  CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX | Re: How accurate is it? The folks are Netflix are pretty smart. That is no doubt taken into account.
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: How accurate is it? But probably ignored. The point of the rankings is to make fast connections look superior, even if 10Mbps can deliver Netflix's max quality. Otherwise they wouldn't include Google Fiber which has practically no subscribers. | |
|
| | | said by Morac:The fastest ISP according to Netflix is Google at about 3.5 Mbps. I had 3 Mbps with Comcast 10 years ago.
Most ISPs are now at least 12 Mbps, so why is Netflix saying most are under 2 Mbps?
Netflix streams don't need more than a few Mbps. It's more about how reliably and consistently an ISP can deliver the stream w/out hiccups to/from Netflix servers. | |
|
| | Canada ignored again? I don't understand why Netflix never provides any streaming stats for Canada. The last Canadian report was published way back in 2012. | |
|
| TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 | Re: Canada ignored again? I bet you Rogers/Bell/Telus have something to do with it... | |
|
| | BOGUS! These rankings are BOGUS. How in the world can Google be ranked a #1 with a small hand full of customers in a single City while other Muni's like EPB who offer similar speeds as Google have far more customers that Google are not ranked?
This entire thing smells like crap! It's nothing more than Netflix trying to get the media to shame carriers into upgrading their networks not for the good of the consumer but for the good of Netflix's bottom line.
Edit: I re-read the article a second time and changed my initial statement.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: BOGUS! said by battleop:It's nothing more than Netflix trying to get the media to shame carriers into upgrading their networks not for the good of the consumer but for the good of Netflix's bottom line. But in the end, if the carriers upgrade their networks don't we all win? Theoretically we get faster speeds all-around. And those of us who have Netflix also benefit from better HD picture quality and higher quality sound.
It looks like a bit of a win-win situation to me, at the ISP's expense - which is not something I particularly care about, as they're still going to be profitable at the end of the day. (It's also not my responsibility as a customer to care about the ISP's bottom line.)
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: NO tax increases / 15% cuts across-the-board / defunding of all ObamaCare-enacted programs. | |
|
| | | | Re: BOGUS! "It looks like a bit of a win-win situation to me, at the ISP's expense - which is not something I particularly care about, as they're still going to be profitable at the end of the day. (It's also not my responsibility as a customer to care about the ISP's bottom line.)"
This is something that's between the Customer and ISP and not Netflix. The customer should be the one putting pressure on the ISP to upgrade not some 3rd party that's trying to protect their bottom line.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: BOGUS! said by battleop:This is something that's between the Customer and ISP and not Netflix. The customer should be the one putting pressure on the ISP to upgrade not some 3rd party that's trying to protect their bottom line. Really? It's in Netflix's best interests as well.
You know exactly how a call complaining about poor Netflix streaming to the ISP would go. "The problem is Netflix."
I wonder how many cancellations Netflix has had were people say they are cancelling about "Poor Quality, and you Netflix won't fix it, my ISP already said there's nothing they can do, it's on your end."
This ranking system can only be positive.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| watice
join:2008-11-01
New York, NY | said by battleop:These rankings are BOGUS. How in the world can Google be ranked a #1 with a small hand full of customers in a single City while other Muni's like EPB who offer similar speeds as Google have far more customers that Google are not ranked?
I wouldn't exactly call EPB a nationwide ISP, they're almost as local as Google Fiber. As for how they're ranked higher, it's right in the article. Because they joined Netflix' CDN?
said by battleop:This entire thing smells like crap! It's nothing more than Netflix trying to get the media to shame carriers into upgrading their networks not for the good of the consumer but for the good of Netflix's bottom line.
The last thing I would call it is "upgrading their networks", so I understand your frustration here. | |
|
| | | | Re: BOGUS! "I wouldn't exactly call EPB a nationwide ISP, they're almost as local as Google Fiber."
That's my point...
"Because they joined Netflix' CDN?"
There has to be at least 1 Muni that's offering Google speeds that's connected to their CDN and I don't see anyone listed.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | Re: BOGUS! I am 99% sure that a muni not too far from here is part of CDN. But they don't offer gigabit, rather 100Mbps+. Still far more than adequate to make the ranking though. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: BOGUS! 100Mbps should be enough to get them ranked if they are going to add Google. | |
|
| | | | |  DeathKPremium
join:2002-06-16
Cincinnati, OH | Re: BOGUS! The list clearly isn't exhaustive. Most ISP's, regardless of their ranking if they were on the list, aren't high-profile enough and/or large enough to actually be on the list.
--
Photos By Greg Strong | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: BOGUS! If Netflix was worried about shaming the ISPs for the sake of consumers they would shame them all instead of the ones with the largest number of Netflix customers.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| |
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The rankings are not bogus, they are ranking them based on their user's quality of Netflix experience, if you will. ISP's most capable of best serving their customers.... NOT by the individual number of customers that ISP has with Netflix.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | Re: BOGUS! "their user's quality of Netflix experience"
It's the user's quality based on what plan they choose to subscribe to. If you have an ISP that offers 5 and 15mb connections but the majority of users choose a 5mb connection they are going to rank them based on 5Mb. This will mislead everyone to think that the ISP has lower performance.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: BOGUS! Netflix says they filter for that, who is capable of receiving HD, for example, and filters devices that won't support it.
They also say that Google Fiber is on the list for inspirational purposes because it's the #1 fastest Netflix experience.
The providers they choose to rank are based on a threshold of number of Netflix hours watched from subscribers of that ISP. This is why smaller providers OTHER then Google aren't on the list.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | Re: BOGUS! "They also say that Google Fiber is on the list for inspirational purposes because it's the #1 fastest Netflix experience."
LOL what a load of shit...
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: BOGUS! It's the #1, the best, why not include it as a reference point? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: BOGUS! It's only #1 because they made it up. I won't be impressed until they can prove their model scales beyond 15-20 million users.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: BOGUS! It may be their own opinion but aren't the ISPs constantly bombarding us with their own made up '#1' claims? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by battleop:It's only #1 because they made it up. I won't be impressed until they can prove their model scales beyond 15-20 million users.
You have some type of evidence that Google is not the fastest average provider on their database? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: BOGUS! Do you have evidence that they are the ONLY provider that's providing their level of service?
Everyone seems to miss my point here. Google is still very new to this with a small hand full of customers (if any yet?). There are quite a few Muni providers out there offering 30-50-100-1G who have a far larger customer base (and foot print in some cases) than Google has. How is it possible that these providers do not even break into the list while Google who is currently a fraction of the size of any of the other listed ISPs is ranked #1?
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | said by battleop:I won't be impressed until they can prove their model scales beyond 15-20 million users. Our entire broadband infrastructure couldn't handle that many users at those speeds. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: BOGUS! Logic.
20mil users @ 1Gbps = 20,000,000Gbps = 20Pbps. The only way to transport that kind of traffic would be 20Pbps/100Gbps=200,000 100GbE links, which I really don't see happening unless we upgrade the entire nation's infrastructure. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: BOGUS! Your example is deeply flawed because you are making the assumption that all 20mil users would use 100% of their connection 100% of the time.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: BOGUS! Even at 10% of those figures, you're going to have issues. What happens during peak usage when people are pulling 100mbps constant watching SHDTV on multiple sets, surfing the 'net, and/or gaming?
Also, you could use 50% of that bandwidth for corporate use. That way you can transfer data more quickly between the servers and clients.
I'm aiming for the future, not today's needs. If you plan on today's needs.. you're going to be obsolete soon. | |
|
| | | No, It's a matter of netflix trying to convince ISP's to allow them to install their caching servers. If you notice, CableVision was the latest ISP to strike a deal to have Netflix's caching servers installed. The ISP's lower down the list have been refusing to get on board.
It makes sense that if Netflix installs local, caching servers right on the ISP's network, that streaming speeds would go up, although slightly, as we've seen in the chart, with CableVision. I am just not sure of Netflix's true motives behind giving ISP's free equipment.
Supposedly it's to cut down on Netflix's bandwidth transit costs. | |
|
| | | | Re: BOGUS! "Supposedly it's to cut down on Netflix's bandwidth transit costs."
AKA Help their bottom line. They are no different than the ISPs they are trying to shame. You may think they are doing this as part of some crusade for the consumer but they are just as greedy as the ISPs they are calling out.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | Re: BOGUS! said by battleop:"Supposedly it's to cut down on Netflix's bandwidth transit costs."
AKA Help their bottom line. They are no different than the ISPs they are trying to shame. You may think they are doing this as part of some crusade for the consumer but they are just as greedy as the ISPs they are calling out.
They ARE also helping the consumer here. If they get the provider on board, sure it helps their bottom line, but it also benefit the consumer because now they will have a better Netflix experience. The better the experience for the customer the better chance they have to keep that sub or gain more.
I don't get your hatred here at all(unless you are an employee of one of the "shamed" providers of course). I applaud Netflix. They are figuring ways to manage their costs, which keeps their sub prices down and allows them to produce more original content(both are wins for the consumer), while getting providers on board to provide a better Netflix experience, with better streaming quality like SuperHD(another win for the consumer). It's a win-win for the consumer and Netflix. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: BOGUS! "(unless you are an employee of one of the "shamed" providers of course)"
I think my signature pretty much covers this.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX | Google Fiber is high profile. That much should be obvious to anyone.
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it. | |
|
| | | | Re: BOGUS! It may be high profile but right now it's more hype than anything. When they start to break the 10 Million mark maybe then they can start to be ranked with the big boys.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | Re: BOGUS! said by battleop:It may be high profile but right now it's more hype than anything. When they start to break the 10 Million mark maybe then they can start to be ranked with the big boys.
People really hate Google.
Obviously, living in Kansas City I see the scope of their project here and it is noting short of amazing. | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | Re: BOGUS! Amazing how? It is ftth done incorrectly. Putting fiber above ground in a place like Kansas City is simply stupid. Google took the cheap route. That's not amazing. Cherry picking neighborhoods is not amazing and neither is choosing the city that offered them the best benefits.
Watching a small cooperative/muni/etc. put fiber in the ground like it is supposed to be done and serving their entire exchange area, even in places where there are single houses on gravel roads. It may only deliver 10-100Mbps, but more than suitable and completely upgradeable when there is actually a real demand for 1gbps and there is no digital divide. That is what I call amazing. And they do that without announcing it to the entire world everyday. | |
|
| | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: BOGUS! I would say they are BOTH amazing. I am no super-fan of Google (given their selling out of user privacy for a buck) but I will admit that I like what they are doing. Aerial fiber, cherry-picking, advertising... all the incumbents are doing the exact same thing. At least Google is opting for the route of competition rather than collusion and I give them points for that. They are bringing us forwards, not backwards.
I really wish the co-ops & munis would announce it to the entire world every day! They are successfully doing what is said can't or shouldn't be done. The only thing we hear about are the ones sued into financial ruin by the incumbents and how it was a failure of the very idea. | |
|
| | | | |
4 edits | said by silbaco:Amazing how? It is ftth done incorrectly. Putting fiber above ground in a place like Kansas City is simply stupid.
What a strange criticism.
The vast majority of our infrastructure on the Missouri side is on poles (cable, phone, power) and I am not aware of any significant differences in reliability as far as Kansas City goes
With my former employer I found our aerial plant side in much better shape than our buried side ( AKA newer copper of course ) simply because our line men could replace bad plant immediately without making dig orders | |
|
|  thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1
2 edits | said by battleop:It's nothing more than Netflix trying to get the media to shame carriers into upgrading their networks not for the good of the consumer but for the good of Netflix's bottom line. Duh. That's the idea. You make it sound so terrible.
Netflix is a publicly traded corporation. Netflix' primary interest is the well being of its shareholders, via the well being of their finances & bottom line. Welcome to reality in a capitalist society.
Netflix is creating these rankings, first and foremost, to protect their self interests. Personally helping us all out is obviously second place. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Who cares WHY they're doing it if it benefits consumers in the long run?
I think a billion dollar company willing to put their PR budget where their mouths are have a MUCH better chance of shaming ISPs into fixing their shit than a bunch of whiny nerds like us on a telecom forum ever will. You can piss into the wind on forums to nerds who make up 5% of the internet yelling "VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET!!!" as if this will ever motivate an ISP to care. If I had to bet what would incentivize ISPs to change, I'd bet on the billion dollar company pouring money into advertising to shame those ISPs over a news site on the internet anyday. Netflix has an opportunity to reach a very important demographic - the demographic ISPs rely on when providing shitty service - the regular user. The person who doesn't know what a cap.. or bandwidth, or latency is. That's a beautiful thing. The fact that the internet is comprised primarily of regular users is what allows them to skate by, because none of us would tolerate most of this crap if we were the majority. We need them to care.
If Netflix winds up helping us, as a result of helping themselves, I'm all for it. Again, Netflix is not a government regulatory body, or a charity. They're a publicly traded corporation with one goal - make f#&ktons of money. If they actually manage to help us get better broadband while in the quest of making tons of money, more power to them!
--
Macbook Screen Repair
Macbook LCDs for sale. | |
|
| | | | Re: BOGUS! Do you work for MSNBC? If you plan on quoting me stay on the topic of my post and not a part that changes the meaning of the post.
What Netflix is doing is Bogus and Bullshit. They are taking an ISP that has little to no customers and ranking them head of ISPs with millions of customers. Then they refuse to rank any other ISP that is capable of delivering the speeds Netflix wants.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | thenderScreen tycoonPremium
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY
kudos:1 | Re: BOGUS! I don't work for any news outlet. I can quote your entire post if you'd like me to - it still sounds like idealist, whiny crap. You sound like a teenager who is pissed off that corporations exist to make money.
Again, if the FCC released this, I would understand the scrutiny. It's a publicly traded company doing this for PR... see it for what it is. I don't expect a third grader's book report to be a 100% concise summary of Macbeth, but if him reading it aloud gets the class interested in Shakespeare, it does some good. I don't expect a media streaming company to be the judge, jury, & executioner of broadband providers, but if they can get consumers to start giving a crap - more power to them. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: BOGUS! I think if you have read any of my posts I don't have a problem with corporations making money. I have a problem with corporations that use bullshit marketing to get their way. If there is any whiny crap here it's coming from Netflix who has been stomping their feet for months because ISPs won't make traffic to their networks their top priority.
If they had picked any other provider to rank #1, local or national, that had a reasonable number of subscribers I would have not said a single word about this. Google has little or no real subscribers at this point so their data is crap in this list.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
| EPB EPB Fiber has had the new Netflix "Super HD" streams since day 1. They appear to be a CDN partner and should be counted alongside Google. I'm sure other small, fast isp's are also partners and should be counted as well. Even if they aren't partners for one reason or another, ignoring these isp's that have gone to great lengths and expense to built fast and reliable networks seems counter productive to Netflix's shame tactics.
There's only a handful of fiber isp's in the US, so they should go one step further and include them. | |
|
| | Netflix Canada Rankings They are skewed because of the ability for Canadian users to limit streaming quality based on our terribly low bandwidth caps.
»i.imgur.com/KqipdGf.png | |
|
|
|
