Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?

Need Help?

That's what we're here for! The goal of the Rogers Community is to help you find answers on everything Rogers. Can't find what you're looking for? Just ask!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply
Gdkitty
Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 14,339

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?


@eddy wrote:

Apparently Jack Sparrow, nobody from Rogers is going to comment to your request.   


Well, this is a user to user forum... not necessisarily a place for rogers to respond to things 😛



Kiwi7
I Plan to Stick Around
Posts: 71

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?


@VivienM wrote:

@Kiwi7 wrote:

Does this mean that Rogers was engaging in some kind of traffic management (throttling) just for Netflix? If so, it is not a matter of "so what". It should have been disclosed as per CRTC regulations and I do not believe Rogers ever did this! So even if you use Netflix without issues, that is not the point!

 

 


I don't think ANY ISP (in Canada or elsewhere) would be stupid enough to engage in any kind of traffic management on Netflix traffic.

 

Why not? Because they have the CRTC (and every other similar regulator) on speed dial. And while I personally would tend to take the ISPs' side over Netflix's, I also recognize that Netflix is very, very, very good at presenting its case. Netflix is not BitTorrent (which used to get its traffic shaped into oblivion precisely because it didn't have good lobbyists and PR consultants)...

 

Now, some ISPs in the U.S. are (or at least have been accused of) taking a different approach, i.e. not upgrading the paths between them and Netflix (which may involve third-parties like Level 3, Cogent, etc.) and letting congestion serve as de-facto traffic management. And I think it is going to come back to bite them... but that's another story.

 

Frankly, I think any reasonable ISP should probably just set up some 10GbE interconnects directly into Netflix's home-grown CDN and upgrade them the instant they hit 60-70% utilization. If the Netflix traffic gets too high and keeping up gets too expensive, bill their subscribers for the GB used, neutrally.

 

In this case, what I think the Rogers PR language means is that the numbers quoted by Netflix apply to Netflix traffic, and that Netflix isn't saying that Rogers customers get 1.whatever megabits/sec to the rest of the Internet. But, as is usually the case when PR folks write about telecom, they chose horrible wording and made things more confusing.


If you deliberately keep that connection with a low bandwidth, I can't see how it doesn't "equate" to throttling Netflix connections.....

Gdkitty
Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 14,339

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?

I see what you are meaning.. and agree.. 
Just trying not to confuse the terms.

Throttling generally is restricting the throughput, speed, etc for the user/service.. from the potential MAXIMUM that is there.

 

Vs say... if the case of they SHOULD (say for example) have 3 pipes of a certain max.. and only then have 1...

 

yeah, its potentially BAD, and restrictive to the customer, something they SHOULDNT be doing.  But not 'throttling' per say.

more not providing proper service..



VivienM
I'm an Advisor
Posts: 931

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?


@Kiwi7 wrote:

@VivienM wrote:

@Kiwi7 wrote:

Does this mean that Rogers was engaging in some kind of traffic management (throttling) just for Netflix? If so, it is not a matter of "so what". It should have been disclosed as per CRTC regulations and I do not believe Rogers ever did this! So even if you use Netflix without issues, that is not the point!

 

 


I don't think ANY ISP (in Canada or elsewhere) would be stupid enough to engage in any kind of traffic management on Netflix traffic.

 

Why not? Because they have the CRTC (and every other similar regulator) on speed dial. And while I personally would tend to take the ISPs' side over Netflix's, I also recognize that Netflix is very, very, very good at presenting its case. Netflix is not BitTorrent (which used to get its traffic shaped into oblivion precisely because it didn't have good lobbyists and PR consultants)...

 

Now, some ISPs in the U.S. are (or at least have been accused of) taking a different approach, i.e. not upgrading the paths between them and Netflix (which may involve third-parties like Level 3, Cogent, etc.) and letting congestion serve as de-facto traffic management. And I think it is going to come back to bite them... but that's another story.

 

Frankly, I think any reasonable ISP should probably just set up some 10GbE interconnects directly into Netflix's home-grown CDN and upgrade them the instant they hit 60-70% utilization. If the Netflix traffic gets too high and keeping up gets too expensive, bill their subscribers for the GB used, neutrally.

 

In this case, what I think the Rogers PR language means is that the numbers quoted by Netflix apply to Netflix traffic, and that Netflix isn't saying that Rogers customers get 1.whatever megabits/sec to the rest of the Internet. But, as is usually the case when PR folks write about telecom, they chose horrible wording and made things more confusing.


If you deliberately keep that connection with a low bandwidth, I can't see how it doesn't "equate" to throttling Netflix connections.....


Well, this is where things get political.

 

Let's take a very simple scenario. Let's assume you have a piece of fiber directly running between Rogers gear and Netflix gear in some carrier hotel somewhere (151 Front, 111 8th in NYC, wherever). That cable has reached capacity, so you want to add a second one. That means Rogers' gear needs an extra port, Netflix's gear needs an extra port, and someone needs to pay the landlord of the building to string another piece of fiber between the two racks.

 

Who pays the landlord? And who pays for the port on Rogers' gear?

 

And who is to blame for the fact that there is not enough capacity until these political issues are resolved?

 

Netflix is a monster. 1/3rd of Internet traffic, coming from a single company. That's unprecedented, and it gives rise to all kinds of technical and political issues.

eddy
I'm a Reliable Contributor
Posts: 142

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?

I look at it this way.  Netflix 7.99/month for all movies, Rogers 7.99/hour for 1 movie.  I wonder which one I would choose?

Gdkitty
Resident Expert
Resident Expert
Posts: 14,339

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?

@eddy.

All depends on HOW quick you want to watch the movie.

Let's take a movie, say, the first THOR movie.

Rogers has it on On Demand, usually day it comes out to buy, etc.
Netflix did not get it, till 8-12 months after it came out.

(People so quickly forget, that only a few years ago when blockbuster closed, many of is were quite content paying 5.99-7.99 to rent a physical copy that you had to drive to pick up)


techguy001
I'm a Reliable Contributor
Posts: 215

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?

Not sure if everyone has already seen this but Rogers published a response in the last day or so to these comparisons in Canadian market.  Netflix doesn't do these comparisons very often so it's whatever state is in place at a point in time.

 

Rogers claims that these comparisons were done just prior to them doubling their capacity to their peering connection with Netflix'S CDN.

 

No easy way to verify their claim, but I personally have had no issues with Netflix streaming on Hybrid 60 service. 

 

 

VivienM
I'm an Advisor
Posts: 931

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?


@techguy001 wrote:

Not sure if everyone has already seen this but Rogers published a response in the last day or so to these comparisons in Canadian market.  Netflix doesn't do these comparisons very often so it's whatever state is in place at a point in time.

 

Rogers claims that these comparisons were done just prior to them doubling their capacity to their peering connection with Netflix'S CDN.

 

No easy way to verify their claim, but I personally have had no issues with Netflix streaming on Hybrid 60 service. 

 

 


Assuming that's true, then it really makes me wonder about Netflix's motives, especially as this is the first edition of this that they have released for Canada. (I thought they released them monthly in the US)

 

If the Rogers explanation is right (and I have no reason to doubt it), then why would Netflix release data that is essentially unfair without at least an asterisk saying 'technical issues with Rogers were resolved on Date X; expect better performance next month?'

 

Frankly, I think the release of this was a warning shot. A reminder to Rogers and any other ISPs that might have the slightest temptation to be less than 100% cooperative with Netflix that Netflix is in charge of the media narrative. And their media strategy is genius: put out embarassing numbers, watch as Rogers PR stumble trying to respond to it, and influential third party outsiders (e.g. Michael Geist) will write and publish the conspiracy theories all on their own...

techguy001
I'm a Reliable Contributor
Posts: 215

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?

Well, I don't think Netflix cares much about where any one ISP is at any point in time.  What was interesting is that for Canada Bell showed up at the top of the list while Rogers showed up at the bottom of a list of 10 ISP's in Canada.   Makes you wonder if Bell had any input in this publication.

 

In any case given the recent agreement with NETFLIX USA and COMCAST regarding their preferred network arrangement it has caused a major uproar with all carriers and the FCC for NET NEUTRALITY rules and laws.   We should stay tuned as this could affect all Internet services as we've known them if it spills to the rest of the world.

 

I agree that NETFLIX is flexing its muscles given their continued rise but as with any one player in the past that has tried to dominate and change the rules, eventually there will be others that will challenge them at their own game.    

VivienM
I'm an Advisor
Posts: 931

Re: Rogers has worst Netflix performance in Canada! Why?


@techguy001 wrote:

Well, I don't think Netflix cares much about where any one ISP is at any point in time.  What was interesting is that for Canada Bell showed up at the top of the list while Rogers showed up at the bottom of a list of 10 ISP's in Canada.   Makes you wonder if Bell had any input in this publication.

 

In any case given the recent agreement with NETFLIX USA and COMCAST regarding their preferred network arrangement it has caused a major uproar with all carriers and the FCC for NET NEUTRALITY rules and laws.   We should stay tuned as this could affect all Internet services as we've known them if it spills to the rest of the world.

 

I agree that NETFLIX is flexing its muscles given their continued rise but as with any one player in the past that has tried to dominate and change the rules, eventually there will be others that will challenge them at their own game.    


And the 'major uproar' is... utterly besides the point, quite frankly. And this has NOTHING to do with net neutrality (though it's in Netflix's bottom line's interest to pretend otherwise)

 

The Internet of 15 years ago, where all traffic went through multiple providers, is long gone. In the late 1990s, for example, Yahoo bought all their connectivity from Exodus, and that was it. And then big Canadian networks bought US transit from MCI or Sprint, smaller Canadian networks brought transit from big Canadian networks (Bell, iStar, Sprint Canada), etc. And so you'd go through 4-5 networks to reach Yahoo from your Canadian dialup ISP. If more than one big US provider (e.g. Sprint, UUnet, MCI) were involved, those big US guys were peering with each other for free, and everybody else paid someone to get them closer to the big US providers.

 

That's not how things work anymore, and haven't for some years. Big content and big residential ISPs (including non-U.S. ones) have both set up operations in big carrier hotels, and have been running direct peering connections to each other. So traffic from Rogers to Facebook, say, goes directly between the two. Same with Rogers and Google, Rogers and Microsoft, etc. And this arrangement saves everyone a ton of money - why would Facebook pay a transit provider to deliver a few gigabits/sec to some provider that brings them closer to Rogers, and why would Rogers pay a different (or the same) transit provider to receive it when they can just pay a building's landlord for a cable between two racks and connect to each other directly?

 

But removing middle networks also can create some very bizarre political issues, which are what we're seeing now...

 

The controversy between Netflix and Comcast has everything to do with what money, if any, will be exchanged for such an arrangement now that Netflix no longer wants to use paid third-party CDNs (who presumably would make whatever deals with whoever are necessary to reach Comcast). Underlying this, though, is the fact that Comcast and Netflix are SO BIG that there are no realistic alternatives to them connecting directly.

 

Note, BTW, something interesting: with the model of 15 years ago (a modernized version of which they were essentially following until they decided to stop using third-party CDNs), Netflix would be paying an Exodus (which has long gone out of business) or Level3 for transit, and that would be the end of it from their perspective. With the new model, instead of paying a transit provider, they run their own network.. and then they want to shame/regulate/etc Comcast into peering with them on a massive scale for free. Better connectivity directly into Comcast's network, without 1-2 intermediaries, and not only do they not pay the intermediaries, but they also don't pay Comcast! Serves their interest very well, doesn't it?

 

(And it should tell you something that they agreed to pay Comcast, and then their CFO said the cost of the Comcast deal wouldn't materially affect their financial results. Clearly Comcast isn't charging an unreasonable price compared to what Netflix was paying for the previous arrangement through third-party providers...)

 

But to get back to your earlier point, I think otherwise. Netflix's business model requires them to have a large subscriber base, which means reaching non-tech-savvy customers, who are more likely to have stuck with cable, even possibly analog cable still, rather than have gone to Fibe TV or satellite or whatever. So Rogers is far more threatened by Netflix than Bell... which means they have the most temptation to play dirty. If a particular month's numbers look particularly bad for Rogers, why not publish them as a ... preview... of the PR trouble that will be headed Rogers' way if they actually were to do something vaguely intentional?