Netflix adds 3D and Super HD - Page 8

Blocking, no, but are they throttling? They've done it with bitorrent.

That doesn't surprise me. I don't really expect there to be a Super HD filter--I'm sure that they'll generate the Super HD encodes for every title they're allowed to offer in 1080p if they haven't done it already (I read somewhere that it takes them about 3 weeks to regenerate their entire streaming encode collection). There's some stuff they're not allowed to offer in 1080p, notably some of the bigger ticket releases they've added recently, like Thor, Captain America and Super 8. These are 720p-only and you can't watch them in HD on a PC at all.

What they really need is a new tier for their "Manage video quality" page. There's a guy in one of the BDP threads whose Sony BDP-S390's Netflix player is choking on the 5800 Kbps Super HD encode and he can't block it (what's happening to him, which he describes as "stuttering and rebuffering", shouldn't happen, but a quality cut-off would give him a work-around). There are three tiers now, "Good", "Better" and "Best" and the "Better" tier won't get you the 1750 Kbps best quality SD encode. They need to add a "Super HD" tier and cut "Best" off at 3850 Kbps (+ 384 Kbps 5.1 sound, so 4300 Kbps). Some people with bandwidth caps aren't going to want to burn it up at a 50% higher rate when playing HD Netflix titles.

I seriously doubt any ISP is throttling Netflix (or VUDU, Amazon Prime, etc.). Caps could become a real issue with ISPs, the wireless folks seems to have done away with unlimited data and keeps lowering the amount of data one can use before surcharges kick in. bitorrent throttling, well I think most people know what that is all about and it has nothing to do with legitimate CDNs.

Sounds like a good plan.

When playing a Netflix stream do you remember if the Panasonic DMP-BDT220, with the previous firmware, would display info about the stream if you pushed the Yellow button? IIRC it would but after the last firmware update that capability was lost.

You know, I never knew that it had that feature in the beginning. I've always used my Harmony remote to control it and never had the colored buttons programmed in.

The Yellow button still works with VUDU, it calls up the info bar that displays the type audio, connection quality, transport controls, chapter selection, etc. Does a similar bar with Amazon and all the colored buttons work, could be that way with VUDU but I forgot to check.

In VUDU and Amazon those buttons bring up the same thing as hitting the down arrow gets you. There's no similar display in the Netflix player that you can get without pausing the video.

The only Netflix players I have that you can get a display like that without pausing are the Xbox, web browser player and the Win 8 app.

Pretty much confirms what I have been saying. But all Netflix customers can still access regular HD, which doesn't seem to be problem at least for me, unless it leads to higher pricing from my ISP.



Ian

 

 

The first paragraph I don't understand the complaint. Is the author asserting that it's wrong for a private company to create it's own CDN, specifically to deliver it's data to ISP and no one else's? Would it be wrong for say, HBO to send only it's content to a subscriber, but not send Showtime's data to a Showtime subscriber? I fail to see the problem with Netflix eliminating a middleman, by delivering it's data directly to an ISP's doorstep, rather than use a middleman.

 

As to the 2nd,  weren't ISPs that sell video services/pay per view divisions of their own, trying to charge (penalize) these CDNs listed here because of the popularity of Netflix? How is a company reducing it's delivery costs bad because Netflix subscribers will no longer bear the cost of the company-which again isn't entirely true, since it is the subscribers that generated the profits that enables the company to provide the equipment given free of charge to the ISPs? This is confusing.

Critics keep saying that Netflix is asking the ISPs to pay to bring their service to the users, except for the ISPs themselves. TWC is making no such claim, and it's difficult to see where it's true. If I understand it properly, if an ISP chooses the peering option Netflix says that it will pay to get its content from the exchange into the ISP's networks. If they choose to take some storage caches, Netflix still pays to get their content in, with the storage caches eliminating some (hopefully a great deal) of that traffic from traveling over the Internet backbone from Netflix's CDN servers. The ISP is only responsible for getting Netflix's streams "the last mile" into our homes, which is what we pay the ISPs to do. The only possible expense seems to be for maintenance of Netflix's cache servers (not an expense for the peering option) which is something the ISPs can negotiate with Netflix for.

Netflix really needs to issue more detailed replies to these critics, demanding that they identify the costs that they're talking about. They're only response is, "Connection to Open Connect is free for the ISPs".

Let's say I offer you a car for free. You'd save a bus fare but would you take it knowing that you have to pay for insurance, gas, maintenance, taxes etc?

Depending upon the car, hell yeah.

As I noted in my last post the peering option wouldn't seem to represent any expense to the ISPs; the "free storage appliances" option has the maintenance cost of those machines, but I'm sure that's something that ISPs can negotiate with Netflix over. Apparently they take such machines into their networks for other CDNs.

From the same blog:

Yup. That pretty much sums up my read into the situation.

I still think it comes down to the ISP losing the revenue stream from the Level 3's of the Internet that transit Netflix data.

To use the car analogy, would you still take the car if you'd lose your monthly subsidy and have to maintain the vehicle? When your existing mode of transportation works just fine, and actually makes you money?

I don't see anywhere that Netflix, not ISPs, will be responsible for the cost of upkeep of either peering or local cache servers and equipment. Only that Neflix is offering it for free which doesn't clarify free for whom.

And you assume that every ISP who's signed up has willing taken on that expense. I don't see anywhere that anyone has claimed that. I think that if that was the case, TWC would have been all over it in their statements to the press. Instead they've made no claim that Netflix was expecting them to pay for anything, just that they were asking for "unprecedented access" to their networks. Again, taking the "free storage appliances" into their networks isn't the only option and peering wouldn't seem to have any cost for the ISPs who choose it.
Edited by michaeltscott - 1/23/13 at 11:13am

Yup. The ISPs who are willing to take on the expense are either small or in a competitive market and it's worth the marketing/advertising effect. They do it because it will generate new business for them.

Whether it's peering or local cache, it takes servers and other equipment to implement the function and costs money to upkeep. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

And I think that Netflix is buying that lunch. Until one of the ISPs comes out and says that Netflix is asking them to pay significant parts of the cost of bringing traffic from Open Connect into their networks I won't believe that they are. TWC's complaining about it but they're not making that claim, which would certainly get them sympathy in the press.

All of those PRs which quoted a Cablevision exec on the topic contain the statement, "Financial terms of the agreement between Cablevision and Netflix were not disclosed." TWC is said to be in negotiations with Netflix about it; negotiating what? I think that all of the other CDNs have agreements with the ISPs to get their traffic into their networks and that Netflix is just seeking to make similar agreements for Open Connect to pay a similar price.

If they were then why have they tried to get their subs (us) to be a part of the nag process?

If it means a monetary gain for the ISPs then why would an ISP balk at Open Connect?

It seems we have been told about the new car but no one is disclosing what’s under the hood.

Exactly, but no ISP is saying that Netflix's claim that connection to Open Connect is "free" and "at no cost to them" is wrong. A few bloggers are saying it, but none of the ISPs are saying it, including TWC, who've raised objections to Open Connect. I have to think that they'd say, "there are substantial costs of connecting to Open Connect that we're expected to bear and will have to pass on to our subscribers", if it were true, but they're not. That would be something clearly objectionable that others would agree with them on.
Edited by michaeltscott - 1/23/13 at 1:33pm

Sorry, have not read the entire thread, but came across a Netflix test page for Super HD. My equipment supports it but Uvrese does not... I'm not holding my breath.

https://signup.netflix.com/superhd

From this:

also:

I see their stock is back to triple digits after their Q4 results.

Wow! Up about 40% in pre-market! But somehow I cannot get over the feeling that the market is over-reacting. Revenue of $945 million and profit of $8 million? Really? Less than 1% profit margin and the stock jumps 40%?

I don't generally dabble in stocks but I've noticed that several companies, specifically Sirius XM, did a similar thing past quarter or two ago. They underestimated or low ball the revenue/profit and when the actual results came in, they had a "surprise" better than expected results which resulted in stock price rise.

It's a shame that Netflix has fallen to typical American corporate culture where immediate short-term bottomline is all too important. They exist quarter-to-quarter unlike foreign companies. I can't say I'm surprised with a vulture like Icahn now being involved with Netflix which I blame Hastings and his missteps.

IMHO, I think it's time Hastings moved on. I think he's a great entrepreneur and innovator but he's not a professional manager. He's had several missteps that made the company vulnerable. He's making one now with SuperHD and 3D where he's forgotten that the customer is the king. Hastings should do like Gates and hand the burrito over to a professional manager.

That's baloney. Open Connect is the name for Netflix's CDN. I doubt Netflix has a revolutionary CDN technology that makes others obsolete.

And, yes, since Netflix probably pays 3rd party CDNs by the volume of traffic, it would save some money running its own CDN as long as it isn't treated (i.e. made to pay) like any other 3rd party CDN by the ISPs. As usual, it all comes down to money. It's a shame since I am sure there is a way to please both the shareholders and the customers. Right now, the customers are getting the short-end of the stick.

If Netflix pays the ISPs what the commercial CDNs pay then they save the profit over that which they have to pay those CDNs.

No argument there but Netflix will save even more if it didn't pay the ISPs what the commercial CDNs pay.

I have a 50mb connection and just like you, my NF has gotten worse in terms of buffering and consistently maintaining the HD stream. I have tried and tried to find a resolution to this and believed it was my connection. I can see the traffic and when the stream drops to SD I am running speed tests and getting 55-60mb down. I have tried hardwired and wired and with different devices. I am a network specialist at an ISP so I have multiple devices to test with. I thought it was my PS3, but it does the same on my new smart TV. It is very annoying. The consistency of the stream is not like it once was.

NF has been trying to partner up with cable companies and would like to appear on your cable bill as an additional service. Since it doesnt look as if that would happen anytime soon, perhaps using the customers as leverage against the ISP's is NF's tactic for self preservation. The point about their earnings is very key. They are trying not to get squeezed out is what I think. Are they trying to gain preferential treatment? In any type of business your main objective is to cut out the middleman...but how are you going to come to me and try and get me to do something for free when you were already paying? How would you feel if you had a friend that took a cab to work everyday then asked you to take them to work. You would assume they would pay you at least a discounted amount of what they were paying the cab, after all, you are still getting them to their destination and they dont have to pay twice the price? How would you feel if that person said, "well, I wanted to ride with you because I know you wont charge me"? Maybe thats a bad analogy, but my point is....what is my incentive for burning up my gas to get you to where you need to be when you didnt have a problem paying and getting there before. That's asking for preferential treatment. Then you want to lay the guilt trip on me on top of that.

I too am excited about Super HD and 3D on NF...but judging by recent performance issues and forcing ISPs to sign up with Open Connect....it seems like they are reaching a bit. Alright...another crazy analogy, but true story....
I used to go to this rib shack and they had the meatiest bones. I loved it. Then one day, they switched it up. Their ribs had no meat on them. They obviously wanted to cut cost and not pay for their premium ribs anymore. It angered me as a longtime customer because I loved those ribs sooooo much, I wouldve gladly paid an extra $2 to keep the same standard. Alas, I stopped eating there. I felt cheated. Even if they wouldve lowered the price of the ribs, it wouldnt have been worth it for me to stay a customer. Dont give me something and take it away or deny me access to it because it costs you more money....charge me more to cover the extra expenses. After being in that spot for years....after the change in ribs....the joint was closed within 6 months.

Yup. It's not as if Netflix has a monopoly on streaming now. I have Amazon Prime as well and both pretty much overlap each other in their popular offerings.