dslreports logo
 story category
Time Warner Cable Attacks Netflix's 'Super HD' Play
Cable Operator Insists Netflix Is Withholding Content

Last week we noted that Netflix had started offering Ultra HD and 3D video streams to customers whose ISPs signed up to use the Netflix Open Connect content delivery network (CDN). The move comes after Netflix starting ranking ISPs by streaming quality each month, clearly as a way to drive ISPs to sign up for Open Connect. As we noted last week, it seemed likely that at least a few of the larger ISPs would balk at this, given traditional tensions over past network neutrality issues.

Click for full size
Time Warner Cable gets the honor of being the first ISP to complain, the cable operator tells MultiChannel News that while they're currently in negotiations with Netflix for the new streams, they apparently don't like it.

"While they call it 'Open Connect,' Netflix is actually closing off access to some of its content while seeking unprecedented preferential treatment from ISPs," Time Warner Cable said. "We believe it is wrong for Netflix to withhold any content formats from our subscribers and the subscribers of many other ISPs. Time Warner Cable’s network is more than capable of delivering this content to Netflix subscribers today."

Netflix has countered by insisting that "Open Connect provides Netflix data at no cost to the location the ISP desires and doesn't seek preferential treatment."

You'll recall of course that Netflix and Time Warner Cable have had a contentious relationship, given Netflix's challenge to traditional television. Netflix also has a history of attacking usage caps as anti-competitive, unnecessary and a symptom of an uncompetitive broadband market, while Time Warner Cable has tried to shove those caps down consumers' throats using often flimsy justifications.

Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper, who has signed up to be a Netflix Open Connect partner, tells me that participating isn't really all that big of a deal, nor much of a headache for the benefits it delivers to users.

"It's an easy process, just like Akamai or any other CDN edge cache," notes Jasper. "Depending upon scale of the service provider, it's one or more servers, deployed at one or more locations in the service provider network." Jasper said his ISP was already part of Open Connect because they directly peer with Netflix today. "Due to ongoing growth in usage, we are also deploying Open Connect servers in our network core shortly too," said Jasper.

Granted Time Warner Cable's outrage runs a little shallow, since they're currently being accused by Google of witholding sports content to thwart Google's entry into the Kansas City broadband and television markets. While naming, shaming and ranking ISPs to embarrass them into using Netflix's CDN may not be the height of tact, it's certainly nothing worse on the behavior front than we've seen from any of the largest ISPs.
view:
topics flat nest 

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

TWC is full of hot air

Why is TWC complaining?

Netflix knows that they can't jam more bandwidth through their ISP's pipes without paying for it - and having other ISPs complaining that it's not fair to them. We've heard that all before.

From a bandwidth management standpoint, I don't see why this is bad for TWC. Especially, when Netflix wants to do all of the hard work.

onlinemedia6
@qwest.net

onlinemedia6

Anon

Re: TWC is full of hot air

I have tried Netflix, Hula Plus, and Amazon Prime Video....and I have come to the conclusion that the OWNERS of the content are the problem, and not the streaming service provider.

At the end of the day, these streaming providers are at the mercy of the content owners, who are really pissed that they aren't going to be reaping such large profits from customers, as they have been accustomed.

They want all houses to pay $80 plus bucks per month to them, plus rain down minutes of commercials, and for the consumer to be happy with it.

I think I will sit on the sidelines, without a TV, and NO cable or streaming services, and wait for the CONTENT owners to see the light..."We aren't going back to a HUGE monthly fee for entertainment(cable)...we want affordable choices(streaming providers)".

The way I see it -- if I DON'T support(spend money) the cable industry or streaming providers, they will have to figure out another way to SELL us the content we like....think about that. We really have the upper hand, the consumer, but you have to take a stand, and drop cable for awhile, send them letters...or just sit back down on the couch and continue "taking it".

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: TWC is full of hot air

said by onlinemedia6 :

I have tried Netflix, Hula Plus, and Amazon Prime Video....and I have come to the conclusion that the OWNERS of the content are the problem, and not the streaming service provider.

From the consumer's point of you, you are pretty much correct. However from Netflix's point of view, they have to deal not only with the content companies to get the rights to the video, but they also have to deal with the major ISPs to get the content servers closer to the customer.

Where the content is at does directly impact the customer normally as long as the bandwidth is sufficient whatever path it needs to take across the internet. However the amount of bandwidth needed for all streams isn't sustainable or scalable to just host everything themselves as traditional website would. The less traffic Netflix has to send across the network from their pipes to the ISPs pipes to your home decreases their costs, the ISPs costs, and network congestion in general.

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua to onlinemedia6

Premium Member

to onlinemedia6
This thread isn't about content.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Ho hum! Most ISPs won't care

Most of the major ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T won't care. The faster connection & caching servers to Netflix is nice; but the Super HD content is limited; it won't run on most devices; and very few customers will care. So there is no real incentive for these ISPs to go out of their way to cut a deal with Netflix - definitely a "we'll get around to it sometime" attitude.

DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium Member
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA

DaneJasper

Premium Member

Re: Ho hum! Most ISPs won't care

said by FFH5:

Most of the major ISPs like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T won't care. The faster connection & caching servers to Netflix is nice; but the Super HD content is limited; it won't run on most devices; and very few customers will care. So there is no real incentive for these ISPs to go out of their way to cut a deal with Netflix - definitely a "we'll get around to it sometime" attitude.

Word from Netflix in another article was that much of the content today is already SuperHD, and that the vast majority of the content library will soon be completely SuperHD-ready.

-Dane
Expand your moderator at work
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Preferential Treatment

I have no problem believing Netflix is seeking preferential treatment. The terms for Sonic.net and Time warner are very possibly different. Time Warner is huge.

Netflix is not this innocent little company that the press and blogs like to make them out to be.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Preferential Treatment

Please explain how they are seeking preferential treatment as I, and many, disagree with this statement and you leave the door wide open for responses.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to silbaco

MVM

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

I have no problem believing Netflix is seeking preferential treatment. The terms for Sonic.net and Time warner are very possibly different. Time Warner is huge.

Of course Netflix is seeking preferential treatment. They want to make their service better, and are offering ISPs a way to cut down on their transport costs. They prefer to get treated better since it's a benefit to all with the exception ISPs won't be able to gripe and charge Netflix access to their subscribers.

It's Netflix service, and they can setup their policies as they want. If they want to setup their service so that there content that consumes the most amount of bandwidth must be closest to the consumers. It saves them money, saves the ISP money, and helps ensure that the consumer has as little issue as possible with bandwidth related issues.

Netflix isn't pushing out any other streaming services. They are free to do it if they want as well. And any ISP can sign up to the program if they have a connection to one of the interconnect sites or peering exchanges settlement-free. Or if they are a larger ISP (Netflix suggests more than 100k subscribers in an area) that they can have their own 4U appliance with 100TB of storage and a 10GB network card locally.

Scatcatpdx
Fur It Up
join:2007-06-22
Portland, OR

Scatcatpdx

Member

Netflix Thug like Behavior.

The problem is Netflix want to jam more bandwidth, compete with cable companies and expect the cable companies to give them room and pay for and upgrades to the network; all so can Netflix can make money off a minority of ISP's customers.
To Netflix is a case of companies behaving badly.
spdickey
join:2002-11-17
Pacific Palisades, CA

spdickey

Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

I am paying extra for TWCs best service. If they can't provide that to the whole internet, including Netflix, I blame TWC.

anon anon
@charter.com

anon anon to Scatcatpdx

Anon

to Scatcatpdx
Well maybe Netflix wouldn't have to go this route if ISP didn't have caps. Only 2 hours and 45 minutes of SuperHD streaming per day would put one over a 250 GB cap.

Also Netflix already pays for it's bandwidth.

And the reason why these ISP have customers paying $50+ month for high speed broadband is BECAUSE of companies like Netflix. If all I'm doing is checking e-mail, weather and sport scores and paying bills online I don't need high speed broadband. In fact I don't need my ISP at all because I can do all of that from my smartphone.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

The caps have nothing to do with it. This will still count against caps.

Netflix isn't paying for this bandwidth or at least very little. That is part of the point to this program. To benefit Netflix. It doesn't really benefit ISPs. Customers are going to subscribe regardless of if they can get super HD. It may save ISPs some bandwidth in their core, but it will greatly increase the traffic in the last mile.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

Netflix wouldnt be paying for "this" bandwidth to begin with.

They have their peering agreement with Level 3, whom is the biggest provider of bandwidth in the world and the cost of the added traffic for higher resolution is marginal.

They dont need to have any agreement with ISP's and can send all the traffic they need over the consumer's ISP that they consumer wants to consume and there is not a single thing the ISP can do or say. Netflix is trying to save themselves money with Level 3, but they are also saving the ISP money as well as they too have peering agreements affected that the traffic will transit if they dont have caching servers. They are also allowing the ISP to provide better service to a very popular application that 20+ million people use. That makes the ISP's customer happy and makes them look good for doing the very thing they should do.... deliver the packets you request.
lonon
join:2012-12-21

lonon

Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

Yes and because it saves ISPs money it makes any argument against net neutrality bunk. ISPs have been whining that Netflix cost them too much. Now they have no excuse to complain.

Netflix traffic shouldn't count against our caps, but we know that's not going to happen.

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

Netflix wouldnt be paying for "this" bandwidth to begin with.

They have their peering agreement with Level 3, whom is the biggest provider of bandwidth in the world and the cost of the added traffic for higher resolution is marginal.

They dont need to have any agreement with ISP's and can send all the traffic they need over the consumer's ISP that they consumer wants to consume and there is not a single thing the ISP can do or say. Netflix is trying to save themselves money with Level 3, but they are also saving the ISP money as well as they too have peering agreements affected that the traffic will transit if they dont have caching servers. They are also allowing the ISP to provide better service to a very popular application that 20+ million people use. That makes the ISP's customer happy and makes them look good for doing the very thing they should do.... deliver the packets you request.

The way I understand it (I might be wrong) Netflix's peering with Level 3 is not an issue since the session never goes through Level 3 in the first place. Netflix is placing servers on the ISP's network and thus the complete session is on the ISP's network with no part of it being on the Internet.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

I believe you would be understanding wrong.

Unless Netflix has every major ISP running lines to the main server(s) that deliver the content to consumers and the caching servers they have to be running over whomever they have as an ISP (level 3) to reach those networks.

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL

Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

said by Skippy25:

I believe you would be understanding wrong.

Unless Netflix has every major ISP running lines to the main server(s) that deliver the content to consumers and the caching servers they have to be running over whomever they have as an ISP (level 3) to reach those networks.

Please reread my comment. I stated that it was my impression that Netflix is placing their caching servers on the ISP's network so Level 3 is not involved in serving the content to the user since it is coming from a server that is already on the user's ISP network. The only involvement of Level 3 is when Netflix wants to connect to the ISP Hosted Server to add new content.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to anon anon

Member

to anon anon
said by anon anon :

Well maybe Netflix wouldn't have to go this route if ISP didn't have caps. Only 2 hours and 45 minutes of SuperHD streaming per day would put one over a 250 GB cap.

Also Netflix already pays for it's bandwidth.

And Netflix is getting the bandwidth it paid for.

But if they want to see their customers happy with "Super" HD, they're going to have to buy some more bandwidth. Evidently, they figured out that last-mile caching is the optimum way to go given the effects of Network Neutrality.

Time Warner is probably willing to go along and allow Netflix to pay to place their caches, but I don't think they're appreciative of Netflix' publicity stunts.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

said by elray:

said by anon anon :

Well maybe Netflix wouldn't have to go this route if ISP didn't have caps. Only 2 hours and 45 minutes of SuperHD streaming per day would put one over a 250 GB cap.

Also Netflix already pays for it's bandwidth.

And Netflix is getting the bandwidth it paid for.

But if they want to see their customers happy with "Super" HD, they're going to have to buy some more bandwidth. Evidently, they figured out that last-mile caching is the optimum way to go given the effects of Network Neutrality.

Time Warner is probably willing to go along and allow Netflix to pay to place their caches, but I don't think they're appreciative of Netflix' publicity stunts.

Apparently you don't quite realize how bandwidth works for non-residential customers.

Companies pay X amount for X amount of speed, with a guaranteed 99.999% uptime regardless of the bandwidth used (1MB or 1TB a month). Netflix has the bandwidth capacity to run it via traditional streams, but then there is issue with latency and QoS. Putting it in the middle of the network eliminates outside congestion sources, and reduces the strain on the ISP and CDN networks.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to Scatcatpdx

Member

to Scatcatpdx
Really? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

The problem is... Netflix is popular and many people want it. They will get it and will put lots of traffic on the ISP's whether that ISP wants it or not.

Now Netflix is able to provide their content at higher resolutions. They could do this without the ISP's agreeing, but it would be more costly to them, it would be more costly to the ISP and it would further impact the ISP's network.

Netflix is doing the nice thing by offering, for even free, to put content delivery servers deeper into the ISP's network so that 1.) It cost Netflix less to send the data but more importanly 2.) It saves the ISP's money and 3.) It puts less strain on the ISP's network in general.

It is a win win situation for the ISP and Netflix with the ISP's getting the bigger win.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

Re: Netflix Thug like Behavior.

said by Skippy25:

Netflix is doing the nice thing by offering, for even free, to put content delivery servers deeper into the ISP's network so that 1.) It cost Netflix less to send the data but more importanly 2.) It saves the ISP's money and 3.) It puts less strain on the ISP's network in general.

It's mainly item #1. With few exceptions, transit capacity is not the issue for a residential ISP. The last mile is where the true bottleneck exists, and short of deploying the caching server on your LAN, there's nothing Netflix can do that's going to change this.

Transit costs are nothing compared to the last mile. Transit connections provide economy of scale, are comparatively easy to upgrade as new technology becomes available, and with relatively balanced traffic ratios can be had for next to nothing.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to Scatcatpdx

Member

to Scatcatpdx
It's the ISP's job to upgrade their infrastructure to support their users demand, whatever that demand is, netflix etc.

In the traditional Netflix world, netflix pays for their bandwidth, customer's pay their upstream providers, not every destination to which they send traffic. This is the basic way that the internet has always worked. Customers be them Netflix, or the average broadband user pay money to their upstream provider and it is the provider's job to provide access to the rest of the internet both their downstream and upstream bandwidth.

That said I have to defend TW in one way, Netflix is strong arming the situation. They are ranking ISP's based on their netflix performance, which casual users may be influenced in their decision about providers.

This the agreement does benefit both companies, ISP's get to reduce their peering traffic, and netflix does the same way, by only sending one copy of a movie to the ISP's caching server.

But Netflix definitely makes out better as the cost for bandwidth is one of their main expenses. and has little downstream traffic, resulting in more lobsided peering while ISP's usually also provide hosting services and have a more equal peering which costs less. More lopsided peering agreements cost more money.

Finally the broadband rating are being used as leverage. Want to move up in the netflix performance rankings, host our servers and save us bandwidth costs.

Netflix is by no means innocent, They are the same as every ISP.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008 to Scatcatpdx

Premium Member

to Scatcatpdx
said by Scatcatpdx:

The problem is Netflix want to jam more bandwidth, compete with cable companies and expect the cable companies to give them room and pay for and upgrades to the network; all so can Netflix can make money off a minority of ISP's customers.
To Netflix is a case of companies behaving badly.

Is this the kind of putrid filth you say after you are done bending over for the ISPs? The kinds who are looking for corporate handouts, since we pay for them to upgrade their infrastructure, and the content companies we pay for them to upgrade their data servers?

You would be better off leaving your mouth to the ISPs and not giving us your opinions.
MrkFrnt
join:2000-11-26
Winston Salem, NC

MrkFrnt

Member

oh the irony

We believe it is wrong for Netflix to withhold any content formats from our subscribers
If I am paying for satellite/cable, why do i have to watch commercials?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: oh the irony

Because the channel operators require it?
Ricanlegend
join:2011-05-18
Bronx, NY

Ricanlegend to MrkFrnt

Member

to MrkFrnt
said by MrkFrnt:

We believe it is wrong for Netflix to withhold any content formats from our subscribers
If I am paying for satellite/cable, why do i have to watch commercials?

You don't have to watch the commercials just get a dvr and fastforward it, I been doing this for 5 years is not that hard
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to MrkFrnt

Member

to MrkFrnt
Or, more appropriately, why can't I get those channels a la carte?
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: oh the irony

The content owners don't like the idea. The providers do not really have much of a say.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

So basically, Time Warner wants others to pay them

even more absurd amounts for their half-ass product?

Yippie

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH

buzz_4_20

Member

Funny How Time Warner Acts about Net Neutrality...

TWC must not have forseens that network neutrality is a two way street.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Sonic.net has a different cost model for transit

The transit cost model for small regional ISPs is very different than large national networks like TWC and Comcast. It's the basic build vs buy scenario that comes about with scale.

Sonic.net pays carriers for transit so that they will deliver bits to them in California. No matter where the traffic originates, carriers must carry that traffic out to California to hand it off to Sonic.net's network.

Comcast and TWC have national footprints, so it makes economic sense to build out their own national backbone. This also enables them to negotiate better transit pricing by taking on traffic in regions close to the source. If a TWC customer in California starts pulling video from a server in Atlanta on nLayer's network, nLayer can dump that traffic directly to TWC in Atlanta and TWC handles transporting that traffic back to their customer in California.

Here's where it breaks down: say Netflix is paying Level(3) for delivering content to TWC today. If TWC dedicates connections for OpenConnect, they will substantially reduce the traffic that transverses Level(3) to reach them. This reduction in traffic will lead to a decrease in revenue for Level(3) from Netflix, which will in turn cause an increase in rates for what Level(3) will charge TWC for bandwidth. (less of a volume discount, and have to make up for some of the lost Netflix revenue) TWC has to tie up network ports that are only used for a single Internet service (Netflix), and they will incur higher last-mile costs once they get this established because the bitrates offered via OpenConnect are higher than the standard service.

Most likely this will result in increased costs for a large national ISP, and those costs would be passed down to all ISP customers regardless if they are Netflix customers or not. Netflix, however, sees a huge financial benefit from the reduced transit costs. When you're dealing with $7.99/mo accounts, I'm not sure you can see enough of a cost drop to offset how much broadband rates would go up.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76

Member

Re: Sonic.net has a different cost model for transit

While your partially right, the truth is that the bandwidth used in all of those peering agreements will drop considerably, netflix accounts for a huge amount of traffic, especially at peak times.
even if level 3 raises rates, the isp is going to be requesting a lot less traffic, overall costs shouldn't increase for the ISP, and likely will decrease, though not as much as they will for Netflix.

The real loser in this scenario is level 3, I doubt they can seriously raise prices to the point it will make up for the lost data transfer netflix and the isp are using.
markbot
join:2012-11-21
New York, NY

markbot

Member

do 2 wrongs make a right?

Netflix is basically violating the principles of net neutrality. they want preferential treatment from ISP that will cost them money to implement for better content. and this arrangement would probably reduce netflix's cdn costs. however, the ISP can already deliver the higher quality content now without even entering into this new agreement.
swarto112
Premium Member
join:2004-02-17
El Dorado Hills, CA

swarto112

Premium Member

TWC service is shoddy at best

be ice if the service actually worked, channels on switched tune in and out. All the tech see that its an infrstructure issue. DVRs slow as molasses in January. AN attitude of its not my problem...ya, TWC sucks...I miss FIOS.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: TWC service is shoddy at best

Cablecard. I'm building a DVR for use on Comcast, and it's going to be WAY better than their POS.
46436203 (banned)
join:2013-01-03

46436203 (banned) to swarto112

Member

to swarto112
Be careful what you wish for.

All the other cable companies are worse.
albundyhere
join:2000-10-26
New York, NY

albundyhere

Member

TWC is an old fart on life support

once Google fiber comes to NYC, they will be gone so fast, i wont even have time to laugh at them.