Netflix adds 3D and Super HD - Page 46 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 5Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1351 of 1920 Old 06-30-2013, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Our last few exchanges have been pleasant; I'm not messin' with that biggrin.gif.

He's just not worth my time anymore. wink.gif


Ian biggrin.gif

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1352 of 1920 Old 06-30-2013, 04:11 PM
Newbie
 
JakeTheSnake783's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post



The fact remains the blame for SuperHD/3D not being available to customers who meet the technical requirements fall squarely on Netflix, not ISPs as Netflix would have you believe.

Yep, I think it is just a way for them to make money, I don't like it.
JakeTheSnake783 is offline  
post #1353 of 1920 Old 06-30-2013, 04:19 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 21,145
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

Pretty much came to the same conclusion. I used unBlock and UnoDNS through their trial periods but never felt the difference between regular Netflix and Super HD to be worth the bother or expense. As a caveat I will add that I use a Darbee Darblet in my setup which helps the picture quality not only for Netflix but also my other streaming services like Amazon and VUDU.

I use a Darblet in a couple of setups also. I prefer to get the SuperHD streams by paying $5 a month to unBlock US. Plus I also get access to their 3D streams. Of course I would prefer to not pay the $5 extra a month. But I'm on FiOS so I doubt they will be bringing SuperHD or 3D streams from Netflix anytime soon.

39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme

aaronwt is online now  
post #1354 of 1920 Old 06-30-2013, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheSnake783 View Post

Yep, I think it is just a way for them to make money, I don't like it.

Whether the blame lies with Netflix or the ISP, ultimately in the end it will be the customer who will have to pay. They are all in it for the money. There ain't no free lunch. wink.gif


Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #1355 of 1920 Old 06-30-2013, 06:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

But I'm on FiOS so I doubt they will be bringing SuperHD or 3D streams from Netflix anytime soon.

Verizon is in partnership with Akamai. One wonders whether they're adverse to anything which will help Netflix take money out of their pockets.

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1356 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 10:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

I'm the one who's pouting?rolleyes.gif You're the poor boy who can't get Open Connect frown.gif and now your making accusations about Netflix with out producing any factual data to back it up, end of story. BTW, what part of ''good luck with that" don't you understand? I get that you have have a right to your opinion, so lets just leave it at that. You can continue this debate with out me, since you seem to think you have the answer for everything.

He's all yours Mike. biggrin.gif


Ian

It's okay, mailiang. Logic is not for everyone. It's perfectly okay to be Robin to Mike's Batman. One day, you'd get out of the cold there in Mike's shadow and he'll be the wind beneath your wings. biggrin.gif As Mike will attest, the mantle of being Netflix apologist is heavy.
Apostate is offline  
post #1357 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 10:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

I don't know how I feel about this BS. Netflix is withhold a streaming video quality level from me, a loyal customer, because my ISP isn't hooked into their new CDN. I don't think that most people have a choice of broadband network service provider, or at least not much of one. It seems obvious that they're free to offer whatever encodes through the CDNs that they're using now that they want to. This looks to be some kind of political thing which makes it seem as though they care little for their customers' satisfaction.

eek.gif All this time, I thought you were disagreeing with me but I was actually agreeing with you! eek.gif
Apostate is offline  
post #1358 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 11:27 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

eek.gif All this time, I thought you were disagreeing with me but I was actually agreeing with you! eek.gif

Yeah, I've changed my opinion over time and realized that their effort to switch to using their own CDN is an economic rather than a "political" one. The only way that saving the commercial CDNs' profit on what they pay them isn't a very big deal is if the commercial CDNs aren't profitable.

Many businesses which use a lot of something that they buy from someone else eventually grow to the point where it makes sense to add an operation to create that something for themselves, for significantly less than what they pay their suppliers for it. 27 years ago I was a summer engineering intern at Anheuser-Busch (in St. Louis, my hometown); they had not long before started manufacturing their own brewer's yeast and were making a profit selling it to others. I don't expect Netflix to sell service on Open Connect, but you never know.

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1359 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 11:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Yeah, I've changed my opinion over time and realized that their effort to switch to using their own CDN is an economic rather than a "political" one. The only way that saving the commercial CDNs' profit on what they pay them isn't a very big deal is if the commercial CDNs aren't profitable.

I agree that the motive is economic rather than "political" but I still abide by all the rest of the sentiments you've stated. All I gotta say is that Netflix is in current less-than-rosy financial condition because of Reed Hastings' blunders. Innovator does not necessarily make a good manager. Look at Google, Microsoft, etc. The founders turned over the control to professional managers who made the companies from trailblazer to mainstream great... well you know what I am trying to say.
Apostate is offline  
post #1360 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 12:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate View Post

I agree that the motive is economic rather than "political" but I still abide by all the rest of the sentiments you've stated. All I gotta say is that Netflix is in current less-than-rosy financial condition because of Reed Hastings' blunders. Innovator does not necessarily make a good manager. Look at Google, Microsoft, etc. The founders turned over the control to professional managers who made the companies from trailblazer to mainstream great... well you know what I am trying to say.

Yeah, I know what you're trying to say. I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation (which was assimilated by HP many years ago). It's technically innovative co-founder, Ken Olsen, nearly drove the company into the ground when he was CEO by making stupid statements to the press, saying that the IBM PC was a "fad" and calling Unix "snake-oil" rolleyes.gif. DEC stock rose 5 points on the news of his retirement biggrin.gif.

You do have to admit that paying the commercial CDNs for more resources to host new higher bandwidth services like Super HD and 3D video for the benefit of a small minority of customers who would appreciate them and to the potential detriment of customers with network service bandwidth caps will do nothing to improve their financial situation.

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1361 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 12:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

You do have to admit that paying the commercial CDNs for more resources to host new higher bandwidth services like Super HD and 3D video for the benefit of a small minority of customers who would appreciate them and to the potential detriment of customers with network service bandwidth caps will do nothing to improve their financial situation.

Absolutely. I don't think I ever disagreed with the rationale behind Netflix's "game." What I disagree is with Netflix playing game in the first place and putting the customers in the middle.
Apostate is offline  
post #1362 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 12:23 PM
Member
 
ivanhoek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Yeah, I know what you're trying to say. I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation (which was assimilated by HP many years ago). It's technically innovative co-founder, Ken Olsen, nearly drove the company into the ground when he was CEO by making stupid statements to the press, saying that the IBM PC was a "fad" and calling Unix "snake-oil" rolleyes.gif. DEC stock rose 5 points on the news of his retirement biggrin.gif.

You do have to admit that paying the commercial CDNs for more resources to host new higher bandwidth services like Super HD and 3D video for the benefit of a small minority of customers who would appreciate them and to the potential detriment of customers with network service bandwidth caps will do nothing to improve their financial situation.

I guess they could make it so that you HAVE to enable SuperHD in your account settings (opt-in , rather than opt-out) before you get those streams. Then, only that minority of customers, perhaps even a subset of those, would subscribe to those more expensive streams.

If it's truly a small minority then the cost shouldn't be a lot. This would also enable them to get an accurate count of customers that are interested in these higher quality streams, for marketing and planning reasons.

Just an idea..
Apostate likes this.
ivanhoek is offline  
post #1363 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 12:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanhoek View Post

I guess they could make it so that you HAVE to enable SuperHD in your account settings (opt-in , rather than opt-out) before you get those streams. Then, only that minority of customers, perhaps even a subset of those, would subscribe to those more expensive streams.

If it's truly a small minority then the cost shouldn't be a lot. This would also enable them to get an accurate count of customers that are interested in these higher quality streams, for marketing and planning reasons.

Just an idea..

That's a great idea! I'd even be willing to pay extra, say a buck or two a month, to get 3D.

I am perfectly happy with Netflix HD and the consensus seems to be that SuperHD is not much of an improvement so I don't really care about that but I really want to get more use out of my fancy-shmancy 3D TV.

It ticks me off that I can't get 3D not because Netflix can't but because it won't. mad.gif
Apostate is offline  
post #1364 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 01:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanhoek View Post

If it's truly a small minority then the cost shouldn't be a lot. This would also enable them to get an accurate count of customers that are interested in these higher quality streams, for marketing and planning reasons.

Just an idea..

I suggested that earlier, but they'd still have to pay the CDNs for the increased storage, a 72% increase in bits: 10.8 GB/hour (total of all of the constituent video encodes for an adaptive bit rate set) versus 6.26 GB/hour for for tens of thousands of hours of non-720p-only HD. That would be for one set; there are apparently multiple sets of video encodes for various devices. I can't imagine that the added expense would be trivial.

There are relatively few 3D titles though; I'd be surprised if there were as many as 100 yet, shocked silly if the count had risen to 200 (aaronwt--do you know?). The increased cost of providing those through the commercial CDNs might not be too onerous.

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1365 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 01:41 PM
Member
 
ivanhoek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

I suggested that earlier, but they'd still have to pay the CDNs for the increased storage, a 72% increase in bits for tens of thousands of hours of non-720p-only HD. 10.8 GB/hour (total of all of the constituent video encodes for an adaptive bit rate set) versus 6.26 GB/hour for tens of thousands of hours worth. That would be for one set; there are apparently multiple sets of video encodes for various devices. I can't imagine that the added expense would be trivial.

I'm pretty sure CDN's charge on traffic served per month. Not on a storage basis.. So if it's truly a small minority of people that enable these streams, they should be OK. Yes, there will be some added expense, however, it should not be a lot if it's truly a small minority that cares..

AWS does charge storage fees as well as bandwidth fees. I'd have to check with Akamai and L3 to see... you know what, I'll ask them and report back.
ivanhoek is offline  
post #1366 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 01:52 PM
Member
 
ivanhoek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanhoek View Post

I'm pretty sure CDN's charge on traffic served per month. Not on a storage basis.. So if it's truly a small minority of people that enable these streams, they should be OK. Yes, there will be some added expense, however, it should not be a lot if it's truly a small minority that cares..

AWS does charge storage fees as well as bandwidth fees. I'd have to check with Akamai and L3 to see... you know what, I'll ask them and report back.

I'm waiting to hear from L3, but I found this about Akamai which leads me to believe that the storage is implicitly included and customers are only charged on traffic served. They are coming up with a storage offering similar to AWS cloud storage, which may change the equation regarding pricing. Perhaps they went back to Netflix and told them that it would cost them a ton more to host that large content from now onwards, which precipitated Netflix to come up with their own solution.

http://serverfault.com/questions/208938/akamai-netstorage-vs-akamai-edge-service

Once I hear from L3, I'll report..
Apostate likes this.
ivanhoek is offline  
post #1367 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 02:20 PM
Member
 
ivanhoek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanhoek View Post

I'm waiting to hear from L3, but I found this about Akamai which leads me to believe that the storage is implicitly included and customers are only charged on traffic served. They are coming up with a storage offering similar to AWS cloud storage, which may change the equation regarding pricing. Perhaps they went back to Netflix and told them that it would cost them a ton more to host that large content from now onwards, which precipitated Netflix to come up with their own solution.

http://serverfault.com/questions/208938/akamai-netstorage-vs-akamai-edge-service

Once I hear from L3, I'll report..

Ok so Level3 answered:

"Origin Storage, or just Storage, is another core service that we offer. It has its own separate pricing which is similar to how we charge on “traffic served per month” for our Deliver services. With Origin Storage we charge based on the “amount of storage (in GB’s) use per month"

So, bottom line is it depends how Netflix has contracted their CDN services whether they get charged for storage or not.. given what I see on packet captures of Netflix traffic, I believe that they are indeed paying storage fees. The movies are directly served by CDN nodes (DNS queries to CDN objects), rather than cached at CDN nodes. But I don't know for sure.

It does seem likely that the move was predicated on being able to deliver these higher bandwidth/storage streams AT ALL. Based on this, it's possible that Netflix just couldn't afford to offer the streams on the commercial CDN's without either taking a hit to their bottom line or raising prices (again).

Regards,
Apostate likes this.
ivanhoek is offline  
post #1368 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Netflix Open Connect vs. Cable: Does it Matter Who's Right?


From Joan Engebretson , Contributing Editor Tech Zone 360

Quote:
Teachers or anyone else who’s ever been in charge of a group of kids knows how challenging it can be to sort out which kid is right or wrong when a dispute arises – especially if the initial moments of the dispute arose outside earshot or while the grown-up was involved in something else.

And that’s pretty much the situation most telecom stakeholders find themselves in with regard to ongoing disputes between Netflix and certain cable companies in the transportation of Netflix content to cable company broadband customers.

The occasional press release or other news bite from one of the parties lands in our in boxes from time to time in much the same way an eight-year-old might come to us to tell us another kid called him a bad word. With Netflix and the cable companies, as with the feuding kids, we don’t know the whole story – and sorting out who’s being wronged is no simple task based on the limited knowledge we have of the situation.

What’s publicly known about the Netflix-cable company saga goes something like this:

2011 – Netflix backbone provider Level 3 accuses Comcast of violating Network Neutrality guidelines designed to prevent broadband providers from discriminating against certain types of content. Level 3 says Comcast has refused to upgrade its connections to support the increased volume of traffic Level 3 is delivering to Comcast as a result of Netflix’s booming streaming video offering. Cable companies undoubtedly are not thrilled about the growing popularity of Netflix streaming services, which threaten their video business.

But the cable companies are not widely seen as the bad guy in this dispute, as many industry stakeholders find Level 3’s Net Neutrality charges to be too much of a stretch.

2012 – Netflix begins publishing performance data indicating which broadband providers offer the best streaming video experience for Netflix users – a move potentially aimed at reminding cable companies that customers may decide which broadband provider to use based, in part, on how well Netflix works on each provider’s network.

2013 – Through a program called “Open Connect,” Netflix makes its “Super HD” content available only to broadband providers that agree to certain conditions, including free peering. Netflix also offers broadband providers the option of obtaining free storage appliances aimed at minimizing the amount of traffic that must be sent from Netflix to the provider.

Time Warner Cable provides a statement to several news outlets accusing Netflix of “closing off access” to some of its content and seeking “unprecedented preferential treatment” from broadband providers. This may sound familiar to any grown-ups that have used the same basic argument with kids. Time Warner is essentially saying, “If we let one of you do this, we’d have to let all of you do it.”

Undaunted, Netflix says it aims to serve all Netflix video over Open Connect.

Open Connect details

I asked Netflix for some additional details about Open Connect in the hope that the answers might put me in a position to offer a judgment on this dispute.

One thing I learned was that the issue now has moved beyond Level 3. A Netflix spokesman noted that the company uses “multiple Internet transit providers as well as (in some markets) legacy content delivery networks for ISPs that are not directly connected to Open Connect.”

According to the Netflix spokesman, “Level 3’s peering policy has no direct bearing on Open Connect.”

Netflix now seems to be handling its own traffic exchange agreements with broadband providers – at least for Open Connect. “If the [broadband provider] is present in any of the same peering locations as Netflix Open Connect, the [broadband provider] should peer with Open Connect in order to support cache fill traffic, as well as play of titles not present on the caches,” the Netflix spokesman said. “In a small number of cases where ISPs have no presence in common Internet exchange locations, other arrangements can be made.”

The idea of filling the cache relates to the free storage appliances Netflix is offering.

The spokesman noted, however, that, “The Open Connect Appliance is not a typical demand-driven cache. Rather it is a custom-designed server optimized for storing and serving large-scale, high-quality video content that is pre-populated during off-peak hours. This pre-population is based on frequent evaluation of content access patterns, and enables the maximum amount of Netflix content to be served with minimum upstream traffic on the [broadband provider’s] network.”

In other words, Netflix hopes to minimize the need for broadband service providers (including cable companies) to upgrade their connections to Netflix by minimizing the amount of traffic Netflix has to send to the broadband providers.

This actually seems like a creative solution to the years-long content vs. eyeballs dilemma.

Content vs. Eyeball Networks

Broadband providers, whose customers provide the eyeballs that watch the content, have complained before that they have to carry more traffic from content providers than they send to the content providers, thereby incurring higher network costs.

Open Connect seems like a good way of minimizing those costs.

And while the cable companies seemed to have the public sympathy when Level 3 raised its Net Neutrality complaints, that situation now seems to have reversed itself. Netflix has attempted to address the cable companies’ concerns by offering the cable companies the free storage appliances. Any cable company that fails to accept that solution will appear ungrateful.

Ultimately, though, this isn’t a dispute about who’s being fair or reasonable and who’s not. Netflix has cleverly leveraged its market power to find a new bargaining chip with the cable companies. The content provider already has established its popularity with the end users who consume its content, many of whom would like to get Super HD as well.

If the Netflix offering were not so strong, these tactics wouldn’t work.

The cable companies are not totally at Netflix’s mercy, however. Amazon, for example, offers a streaming video service – and it would be surprising for that company not to have an HD offering in the works.

And considering the success of Netflix, some other companies also may be working on a competitive service.

If the cable companies hold out against Netflix on Open Connect, some of these Netflix competitors might be more than willing to cooperate with the cable companies on traffic exchange issues in order to get access to Super HD- free (and perhaps one day Netflix-free) consumers via the cable companies’ broadband connections.

Laissez faire

Sometimes a grown-up’s best approach in mediating between feuding kids is to let them work things out themselves, while keeping an eye out to make sure disputes don’t escalate. I would argue that it’s also the appropriate approach toward Netflix and the cable companies.


Until there's a clear winner in this dispute, I'm staying out of it. For me Open Connect offers better service, but unlike Blu-Ray or my Satellite Dish, I could still live with out it. biggrin.gif



Ian
Apostate likes this.

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #1369 of 1920 Old 07-01-2013, 02:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
Apostate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanhoek View Post

It does seem likely that the move was predicated on being able to deliver these higher bandwidth/storage streams AT ALL. Based on this, it's possible that Netflix just couldn't afford to offer the streams on the commercial CDN's without either taking a hit to their bottom line or raising prices (again).

Oh, great. I can see where this is going. We are going end up paying higher price because Hastings was too bone-headed and didn't have the foresight to get a decent contract with CDNs. rolleyes.gif
Apostate is offline  
post #1370 of 1920 Old 07-02-2013, 07:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation

OT.

Interesting. We had a PDP-11/04 in our CMX 340 editing system for many years. All of the CMX items were eventually replaced by Avid equipment.

Now back to our daily dose of bickering smile.gif
Wendell R. Breland is online now  
post #1371 of 1920 Old 07-02-2013, 12:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
There is a very real and present need for a "Manage video quality" selection to defeat Super HD while allowing regular 1080p for those of us with bandwidth caps. With the diminished summer television schedule I'm streaming more; 4 hours of Super HD is 10.44 GB worth of video, versus 7 GB for 3850 Kbps 1080p; over 30 days that's a savings of 103 GB, a quarter of my new cap, a third of the cap for my old service tier. Some of the stuff that I "watch" are dialog-oriented crime procedurals, like Law & Order, for which Super HD is completely unnecessary; SD would be fine. I only really watch the establishing scenes for those and mostly just listen to the rest while playing puzzle games on my smartphone or tablet. I'm going to have to start watching some stuff on my Roku 3, tuning the output resolution down to 720p.

At present, the defined tiers are:

  • "Good quality (up to 0.3 GB per hour)", good enough for the 375 Kbps video + 192 Kpbs stereo sound on an STB; 560 Kbps video + 64 Kbps stereo on a PC.
  • "Better quality (up to 0.7 GB per hour)", good enough for 1050 Kbps 480x640 video + 384 Kbps 5.1 sound with bits to spare, but not 1750 Kbps 480x704 which need .8 GB/hour for video alone.
  • "Best quality (up to 1.0 GB per hour, or up to 2.3 GB per hour for HD)", which was defined for the old 4800 Kbps 1080p + 384 Kbps 5.1 sound, 2.33 GB/hour; 5800 Kbps 1080p w/5.1 sound requires 2.8 GB/hour but the Best setting doesn't block it

I'd define tiers for:

  • best quality SD + 5.1 sound (1 GB/hour)
  • 720p + 5.1 sound (1.5 GB/hour)
  • non-Super-HD 1080p + 5.1 sound (1.9 GB/hour)
  • Super HD + 5.1 sound (2.8 GB/hour)

There could be lower tiers for crap video; I don't care. It'd be really great if a sub-menu for these setting were added to the player UIs, similar to the "Audio & subtitles" menu.

It would be nice not to have a cap at all; Congress needs to enact laws to forbid them, or at least make them much higher. They essential constitute constraint of trade for the video streaming and content download industries.

I'm going to edit this and send it to Netflix via support chat. Who knows? Perhaps someone will listen.

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1372 of 1920 Old 07-02-2013, 12:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
mtallent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cecilia,KY
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

OT.

Interesting. We had a PDP-11/04 in our CMX 340 editing system for many years. All of the CMX items were eventually replaced by Avid equipment.

Now back to our daily dose of bickering smile.gif

Did you ever use any of the devices from the companies I started- Consolidated Video Systems (CVS), ADDA Corp or ALTA Group? Invented the Digital time Base Corrector and a few other things.

Mike T
mtallent is offline  
post #1373 of 1920 Old 07-02-2013, 12:59 PM
Member
 
ivanhoek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

There is a very real and present need for a "Manage video quality" selection to defeat Super HD while allowing regular 1080p for those of us with bandwidth caps. With the diminished summer television schedule I'm streaming more; 4 hours of Super HD is 10.44 GB worth of video, versus 7 GB for 3850 Kbps 1080p; over 30 days that's a savings of 103 GB, a quarter of my new cap, a third of the cap for my old service tier. Some of the stuff that I "watch" are dialog-oriented crime procedurals, like Law & Order, for which Super HD is completely unnecessary; SD would be fine. I only really watch the establishing scenes for those and mostly just listen to the rest while playing puzzle games on my smartphone or tablet. I'm going to have to start watching some stuff on my Roku 3, tuning the output resolution down to 720p.

At present, the defined tiers are:

  • "Good quality (up to 0.3 GB per hour)", good enough for the 375 Kbps video + 192 Kpbs stereo sound on an STB; 560 Kbps video + 64 Kbps stereo on a PC.
  • "Better quality (up to 0.7 GB per hour)", good enough for 1050 Kbps 480x640 video + 384 Kbps 5.1 sound with bits to spare, but not 1750 Kbps 480x704 which need .8 GB/hour for video alone.
  • "Best quality (up to 1.0 GB per hour, or up to 2.3 GB per hour for HD)", which was defined for the old 4800 Kbps 1080p + 384 Kbps 5.1 sound, 2.33 GB/hour; 5800 Kbps 1080p w/5.1 sound requires 2.8 GB/hour but the Best setting doesn't block it

I'd define tiers for:

  • best quality SD + 5.1 sound (1 GB/hour)
  • 720p + 5.1 sound (1.5 GB/hour)
  • non-Super-HD 1080p + 5.1 sound (1.9 GB/hour)
  • Super HD + 5.1 sound (2.8 GB/hour)

There could be lower tiers for crap video; I don't care. It'd be really great if a sub-menu for these setting were added to the player UIs, similar to the "Audio & subtitles" menu.

It would be nice not to have a cap at all; Congress needs to enact laws to forbid them, or at least make them much higher. They essential constitute constraint of trade for the video streaming and content download industries.

I'm going to edit this and send it to Netflix via support chat. Who knows? Perhaps someone will listen.

You could also buy a second connection from your provider to get around the cap. Also, the business accounts are frequently uncapped or have much higher caps. Yes, either option costs more though.

I've personally done the two connection thing, as it was MUCH cheaper than getting a business account and was faster, as well. Right now I'm running a single connection since the speed wasn't required yet and TWC doesn't enforce caps yet.
ivanhoek is offline  
post #1374 of 1920 Old 07-02-2013, 01:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanhoek View Post

You could also buy a second connection from your provider to get around the cap. Also, the business accounts are frequently uncapped or have much higher caps. Yes, either option costs more though.

Much more, and I'm not sure that Cox works that way. With a second connection, do you get the combined cap for both to be used on either? I could add a connection in the 18/2 tier to get another 250 GB for $55/month, probably more than I need or the 3/1 tier to for another 100 GB cap for $43/month, grossly overpriced. They should just let people add to their cap for say, $10/month per additional 50 GB. I'd buy 100 GB extra for $20--I could live with that.

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1375 of 1920 Old 07-02-2013, 02:18 PM
Member
 
ivanhoek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Much more, and I'm not sure that Cox works that way. With a second connection, do you get the combined cap for both to be used on either? I could add a connection in the 18/2 tier to get another 250 GB for $55/month, probably more than I need or the 3/1 tier to for another 100 GB cap for $43/month, grossly overpriced. They should just let people add to their cap for say, $10/month per additional 50 GB. I'd buy 100 GB extra for $20--I could live with that.

I did it with TWC. I'm fairly sure that with Cox you get a full cap for the second connection. You'd then need to use a load balancing firewall to distribute traffic evenly. I use PFsense, which is free software. There are some other commercial ones that work as well.

In my case I have TWC's wideband service, which costs $99.. for the second connection, I ended up paying another $99.. they didn't want to allow disparate connection speeds, but you could get a DSL line or something for the second connection.

I did that for a while, but it sucked.. anything going over the DSL was slower than the TWC wideband, so I dropped the DSL.. maybe if I was hitting caps, I would consider that again. The DSL was cheap, at $19.99 a month or so.
ivanhoek is offline  
post #1376 of 1920 Old 07-02-2013, 07:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtallent View Post

Did you ever use any of the devices from the companies I started- Consolidated Video Systems (CVS), ADDA Corp or ALTA Group?
IIRC we did have two ADDA Frame Stores. Most of the studio equipment was from Ampex, Sony, Avid, Grass Valley, Tektronix, BTS, GE, RCA, CMX, Harrison, Harris, Barco, etc. Been retired for over 9 years and have forgotten many items/names.

Quote:
Invented the Digital time Base Corrector and a few other things.
Interesting. The Ampex AVR-1 had a digitally controlled analog TBC (early 70's). The Ampex VPR-3 had an all digital TBC called Zeus (mid 80's).
Wendell R. Breland is online now  
post #1377 of 1920 Old 07-03-2013, 02:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanhoek View Post

I did it with TWC. I'm fairly sure that with Cox you get a full cap for the second connection.

I can't afford a second connection. I'd be willing to pay extra for a larger cap, but not another $100/month.

I sent my suggestion to Netflix by pasting the following into a support chat (an edit of what I posted above).

Netflix Bandwidth Management Tiers Suggestion (Click to show)
There is a very real and present need for a "Manage video quality" selection to defeat Super HD while allowing regular 1080p for those of us with bandwidth caps. With the diminished summer television schedule I'm streaming more; 4 hours of Super HD is 10.44 GB worth of video, versus 7 GB for 3850 Kbps 1080p; over 30 days that's a savings of 103 GB, a quarter of my new cap, a third of the cap for my old service tier. Some of the stuff that I "watch" are dialog-oriented crime procedurals, like Law & Order, for which Super HD is completely unnecessary; SD would be fine. I only really watch the establishing scenes for those and mostly just listen to the rest while playing puzzle games on my smartphone or tablet. I'm going to have to start watching some stuff on my Roku 3, tuning the output resolution down to 720p, even though I'd really like to get the non-Super 1080p.

At present, the defined tiers are: "Good" (<= .3 GB/hour), good enough for the 375 Kbps video + 192 Kpbs stereo sound on an STB; 560 Kbps video + 64 Kbps stereo on a PC;
"Better" (<= 0.7 GB/hour), good enough for 1050 Kbps 480x640 video + 384 Kbps 5.1 sound with bits to spare, but not 1750 Kbps 480x704 which needs .8 GB/hour for video alone;
and "Best" (<= 2.3 GB/hour), which will get you everything, even though 5800 Kbps Super HD video + 384 Kbps sound needs 2.8 GB/hour.

I'd suggest tiers for:
best quality SD + 5.1 sound (1 GB/hour);
720p + 5.1 sound (1.5 GB/hour);
non-Super-HD 1080p + 5.1 sound (1.9 GB/hour);
and Super HD + 5.1 sound (2.8 GB/hour).

There could be lower tiers which limit you to crap video; I don't care. It'd be really great if a sub-menu for these setting were added to the player UIs, similar to the "Audio & subtitles" sub-menu, perhaps called "Video quality".

I ended the chat (with someone with the interesting name "Monda") by say, "Just wanted to make you guys aware that Super HD, meant to be a blessing, is actually a problem for some of us with bandwidth caps".

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1378 of 1920 Old 07-03-2013, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

I can't afford a second connection. I'd be willing to pay extra for a larger cap, but not another $100/month.

I sent my suggestion to Netflix by pasting the following into a support chat (an edit of what I posted above).

Netflix Bandwidth Management Tiers Suggestion (Click to show)
There is a very real and present need for a "Manage video quality" selection to defeat Super HD while allowing regular 1080p for those of us with bandwidth caps. With the diminished summer television schedule I'm streaming more; 4 hours of Super HD is 10.44 GB worth of video, versus 7 GB for 3850 Kbps 1080p; over 30 days that's a savings of 103 GB, a quarter of my new cap, a third of the cap for my old service tier. Some of the stuff that I "watch" are dialog-oriented crime procedurals, like Law & Order, for which Super HD is completely unnecessary; SD would be fine. I only really watch the establishing scenes for those and mostly just listen to the rest while playing puzzle games on my smartphone or tablet. I'm going to have to start watching some stuff on my Roku 3, tuning the output resolution down to 720p, even though I'd really like to get the non-Super 1080p.

At present, the defined tiers are: "Good" (<= .3 GB/hour), good enough for the 375 Kbps video + 192 Kpbs stereo sound on an STB; 560 Kbps video + 64 Kbps stereo on a PC;
"Better" (<= 0.7 GB/hour), good enough for 1050 Kbps 480x640 video + 384 Kbps 5.1 sound with bits to spare, but not 1750 Kbps 480x704 which needs .8 GB/hour for video alone;
and "Best" (<= 2.3 GB/hour), which will get you everything, even though 5800 Kbps Super HD video + 384 Kbps sound needs 2.8 GB/hour.

I'd suggest tiers for:
best quality SD + 5.1 sound (1 GB/hour);
720p + 5.1 sound (1.5 GB/hour);
non-Super-HD 1080p + 5.1 sound (1.9 GB/hour);
and Super HD + 5.1 sound (2.8 GB/hour).

There could be lower tiers which limit you to crap video; I don't care. It'd be really great if a sub-menu for these setting were added to the player UIs, similar to the "Audio & subtitles" sub-menu, perhaps called "Video quality".

I ended the chat (with someone with the interesting name "Monda") by say, "Just wanted to make you guys aware that Super HD, meant to be a blessing, is actually a problem for some of us with bandwidth caps".

eek.gif


Have you ever considered switching to another ISP like Fios, if available. These caps don't seem to reduce subscriber's cost when compared to the majority of ISP's which don't have any. I'm not quite clear as to why they have them if they are not saving anyone any money. I live in a highly congested area in terms of internet traffic, have no caps and pay on average less the $50.00 a month. Maybe you could shed some light on this for me.

Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #1379 of 1920 Old 07-03-2013, 05:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
michaeltscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 16,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

eek.gif


Have you ever considered switching to another ISP like Fios, if available. These caps don't seem to reduce subscriber's cost when compared to the majority of ISP's which don't have any. I'm not quite clear as to why they have them if they are not saving anyone any money. I live in a highly congested area in terms of internet traffic, have no caps and pay on average less the $50.00 a month. Maybe you could shed some light on this for me.

Look it up; plenty of chatter on the topic.

This is what my ISP has to say about it:
Quote:
Why does Cox have data usage allowances?

Data usage allowances are one way to ensure that extremely high bandwidth users do not negatively impact other customers using Cox's broadband network. While today a very low percentage of Cox High Speed Internet customers reach their data usage allowance, some customers far exceed their allowance and impact other Cox customers. Moreover, Internet usage is growing exponentially with all of the new devices, applications and streaming media available. Cox continually invests in its Internet service network to meet increasing demand, but data capacity is not infinite. Cox High Speed Internet is on a shared network, so your experience could be impacted by your neighbor’s usage.

I just switched to Cox's highest speed residential network service tier, the 50/5 "Ultimate" plan, which has a 400 GB/month cap. 4.5 hours a day of Netflix Super HD w/5.1 sound will burn that up (388.2 GB; non-Super-HD 1080p is 122.4 GB less). 400 GB is the most that you can have on a residential account. If you exceed it repeatedly they threaten to suspend your service.

Sadly, there's no FiOS in this neighborhood. Nothing else can deliver close to the same speeds.

Mike Scott (XBL: MikeHellion, PSN: MarcHellion)

"Think of the cable company as a group of terrorist (sic)." -- hookbill
michaeltscott is offline  
post #1380 of 1920 Old 07-03-2013, 07:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
undecided's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

I believe that it's incorrect to consider Netflix a "gatekeeper" here. The ISPs are holding the gate shut by not allowing traffic from Netflix's CDN into their networks. If a Net Neutrality law were to apply here it would force the ISPs to allow any CDN into their networks for a deal which did not cost them profits.

The slippery slope is turning Net Neutrality back on the network content sellers. If Netflix reckons that they can't afford to offer higher bandwidth services via the commercial CDNs and can't get traffic from their own CDN into all ISP networks and they're hit with a law which says that they can't offer higher bandwidth services to only some of their customers then they can't offer higher bandwidth services. Period. No Super HD, 3D or 4K streams for anyone, ever. Of course they could offer access to higher bandwidth services to every customer on a per account basis at a premium price, regardless of whether their ISP has elected to connect their networks to Open Connect. Fine with me--I know that I wouldn't pay extra for Super HD. I'm actually paying extra for it now in its unavoidable strain on my bandwidth cap and that would be one way for me to turn it off biggrin.gif. Unfortunately they probably couldn't sell enough at any reasonable price to cover the cost of making it available to everyone.

Respectfully I think they are being the "gatekeeper" - Netflix decided not to supply Super HD to certain ISPs unless they signed for Netflix Open Connect. We can all speculate why most of the major ISPs have declined to do this - but frankly that is all it is - speculation. Only the ISP's and Netflix truly know. It was Netflix who decided to change the 'status quo' when previously everyone could get the highest quality stream if their connection supported the necessary speed.

Now I know I am being a little 'cheeky' - but mailiang and michaeltscott you both have ISP's with Open Connect and it may be easier to rationalize Netflix's position if you are already getting Super HD smile.gif

Anyway as I said above - no big deal on Super HD as it sounds like it benefits are marginal at best.

What concerns me is the precedent. If future new features (4K or as we are supposed to call it 2160P, etc) from Netflix are similarly limited to ISPs using Open Connect I will probably not get them.

Comcast is now a literal unregulated monopoly for high speed internet in my location - as Verizon is basically stopping maintenance on their old copper lines and 'optimizing' peoples connections to lower speeds hoping to drive them away. This happened to me last summer and is why I am now with Comcast http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-is-Willfully-Driving-DSL-Users-Into-the-Arms-of-Cable-120473

I have no choice but to use Comcast and have absolutely no leverage over them. This seems that is unlikely to change under current government/FCC policy. See Susan Crawford “the United States now has neither a competitive market for high-speed wired internet access nor government oversight.”http://www.policymic.com/articles/22841/susan-crawford-internet-is-critical-to-society-and-should-be-regulated-like-a-utility

I hope Netflix finds a business model that allows them to continue to deliver the great service and value they offer today and expand the features they offer to all of their customer base. I like others in this thread would pay a little more for higher speed / higher quality streams.

It seems there is a current impasse between Netflix and the major ISP's on Open Connect - that at least from the outside seems unlikely to get resolved any time soon.
Apostate likes this.
undecided is offline  
Reply Video Download Services & Hardware

Tags
Netflix

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off