Netflix Performance on Top ISP Networks
techblog.netflix.com
techblog.netflix.com
I have a 50 megabit plan with Rogers and all my SSL traffic throttles the entire line with an exponential dropoff to 25 Kilobytes a second. The packet loss is severe and persists for all packets even HTTP. It takes a long time sometimes an hour for the connection to recover. You can imagine how many applications this would impact (syncs with large files, P2P, Dropbox make the Internet virtually unusable).
I don't speculate on the matter, but here is some more information.
http://www.christopher-parsons.com/blog/isps/rogers-network-...
http://torrentfreak.com/rogers-bittorrent-throttling-experim...
There are a few elements to it that one could use to dispute its value — for example, Netflix has no way of knowing what level of service a customer has paid for. They also don't appear to differentiate between different types of service from a single ISP (e.g., they lump together AT&T's old ADSL customers in with ADSL2/U-Verse, and, presumably Verizon's DSL with FiOS). I would hope that they are also filtering for sessions where a higher bitrate is requested, which Netflix's Silverlight app doesn't do unless the window/screen is large enough to benefit from the extra resolution.
Of course, one could argue that those differentiators don't ultimately matter, and that if its customers are opting for older or slower service levels, that can tell you something about the ISP's pricing competitiveness.
I was wondering why both AT&T and Verizon scored lower on the graph than I expected, though it's a pleasant surprise to see my local cable operator (Charter) parked at the top should I ever need to switch.
Perhaps Netflix can't easily separate the two? I know the hostname attached to the IP I get from Verizon reveals that I'm using FiOS, but the IP address itself seems to be assigned out of the same blocks that Verizon DSL customers use. I suspect Netflix isn't--at least for an external graph like this--putting in the computing resources needed to reverse look-up all the connecting IPs and parsing them for the individual provider offerings.
First, this is next to useless from a consumer perspective. Because anyone whose actually tested a single provider can tell you speeds vary by geography. Time Warner might be middle of the pack overall but the fastest in your particular area.
Second, they're really p#ss#ng off the ISPs here. If you want faster bandwidth out of the ISPs its better to privately talk to them than publicly embarrass them.
Finally this reinforces the reputation Netflix is already getting among content producers which is the company doesn't play well with others. There's a reason why the head of HBO and Time Warner are taking hard lines against Netflix.
Bottom line: Netflix is part of a content delivering ecosystem. If they offend every other part of that ecosystem it will be much harder for them to survive in the future
A gift from my employer - http://lh4.ggpht.com/_kt8r19d1Kpw/TUCXRpFxEjI/AAAAAAAAA_Y/t_...
(context - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13bewkes.ht...)
And Bewkes is probably a bit more pissed about http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...
NetFlix knows that the ISPs are already pissed at them and are moving to throttle them, so they fire back by showing consumers which of the ISPs are a better fit for their NetFlix viewing habits. NetFlix is flexing its muscle a bit here to show it can redirect customers to choose different ISPs and affect their bottom line.
I, too, like that Netflix is giving out this kind of information, but let's remember that in the USA many people have two or even just one choice. I have my choice of Comcast cable or AT&T DSL for broadband. That's it. And I'm not 100% sure that AT&T DSL would actually work in my building, and it's top speed is 6Mb/s compared to Comcast's 12Mb/s (or maybe 15Mb/s, I forget). Plus, AT&T: the only company I can think of with worse customer service than Comcast.
So while I like that they're giving out this information I'm not sure it's going to be a good idea to piss off ISPs with this near monopoly situation in many parts of the USA.
It's even worse: I live in Tucson, and I have two "choices:" Qwest DSL, with a max download speed of 1.5 mb/sec, or Comcast cable, which offers 1.5, 7, or 12. In other words, I have one real choice.
So while this information would have been worth its weight in gold as a threat to the ISPs its now released where it can do all the damage its going to do. If the impact is found to be negligible than Netflix has lost what little leverage it has over the ISPs.
Verizon FIOS looks like the best chance at breaking the monopolies' backs, but it seems to be slow going - I haven't had it available in any of the last four places I've lived in in very dense NYC and Bay Area, yet my parents in rural Maryland who live next to cows have had it for at least four years.
Remember that "the others" with whom "Netflix does not play well" include members of the RIAA, the MPAA, and primary backers of ACTA. I'm sure you're also aware that cable operators have a similarly anti-customer track record in Washington DC.
These not-minor details matter. Why? Because the audience is also part of "the entertainment ecosystem". Suing them, DRMing them, and bribing their elected representatives in Congress all count as fundamentally offensive - and all that was going on well before Netflix could get anyone to return its calls.
I'm not saying that your advice isn't good. I'm just saying that Netflix isn't the first company to which it should be directed.
I think that partially explains the clump of RBOCs in the 1,800 - 2,000 band.
I manage a network that has several hundred subscribers wholesaled off of AT&T's legacy DSL network in the midwest.
Many of our users can't get speeds beyond that range because of line errors. The copper plant is degrading. Those RBOCs primarily use ADSL. Their speeds will probably degrade until someone overbuilds with FTTH.
I gotta nitpick the graph though, it's incredibly hard to figure out which line is which ISP (too many lines and similar colors). A regular bar chart with the ISP names under each one would have worked fine (since the avg. bandwidth didn't change much over the course of the study).
Yeah, we are getting raped either way. It's pretty much impossible to win this argument as a consumer, even if Netflix wins their with the ISPs.
I used to be with Teksavvy where 200 gb/ month was the norm. I just might have to convince my g/f and get her to switch.
Just to compare, Rogers is $59 for 60 gb/ month, Teksavvy is $29.99 for 200 gb.
If "fucked" was substituted for "raped", would you still be offended? What about "violated"? "shat on"? "murdered"?
I'm trying to determine whether it's the content of the metaphor, the language, or something else which is offensive. (FWIW, my friends use "raped" a lot, and I sense that some are offended by it, so I'm trying to distinguish why.)
Feel free to say "fuck", "shit", etc. for all I care.
*The grammatically general "you".I come from a country with perhaps the most open mind on free speech, so there probably isn't going to be anything that gets under my skin - I probably use profanity too much as a result.
I only see "rape" on the internet and don't know how prevalent it is in real-life vernacular in English-speaking countries, but it's something I'm glad I don't see that much (outside of StarCraft 2 discussions).
I don't really know that many contexts a vernacular "murder" is used in, so I don't know about that.
Regardless, the victim isn't going to be able to take any offence.
Actually, my mom was murdered gruesomely. I have better things to do than getting offended too much over people's word choices when I know that they're just venting and not actually trying to insult me personally.
That said, there's plenty of awkwardness when people assume that a person your age should have living parents and you always end up having to explain what happened when you get to know new people.
Personally, I think the suggestion that using words in alternative contexts somehow diminishes their power in a negative way to be very silly. Maybe I'm wrong though, and Disney should stop making pirate movies because victims of piracy might be watching.
"Rape" isn't irksome because of its power, but its meaning; if there were or are synonyms, they would be just as bad (assuming they weren't euphemistic to the point of complete obfuscation).
To see American news channels use terms like the "F-word", "N-word", "C-word", etc., when they are reporting on what someone said, it becomes farcical. It reminds me of the Fry and Laurie sketch in a courtroom where Hugh Laurie quotes a heated exchange, but has to replace all the profanities with words that aren't offensive to the court, which obviously distorts the picture and thereby completely destroys the purpose of it.
They already say "rape" outright when reporting on it - which they should - because that's more of a quantitative word. The word "rape" shouldn't be banned or anything like that, but people shouldn't become oblivious to the meaning and ramifications of the word.
I don't dislike it because its impolite, or because its offensive to others.
Rather, its because it conjures up an image in my mind that is too strong for the context it is used. Lost a game of foosball? You were "raped". Getting a raw deal from your ISP? You were "raped".
Unlike murder, 'rape' is more commonly used non-euphemistically. At least at my university, everytime you would go to the bathroom you'd see an anti-rape poster. When you got back from summer vacation, you'd be handed a 'rape whistle'. We also had patrols specifically to prevent 'rape'--not mugging, not murder, but rape.
Because of that when someone says "raped" I think of the actual graphic act. However the term 'murdered' in my mind is far disassociated from the actual act.
Question, and perhaps unrelated, why do highschool football teams have pep-talks where the coach tells them to "murder" the other team. Why aren't they extorted to "rape" the other team instead?
As a baseline, all of the ISPs on this list that I've used (ftth, coax and dsl providers) have been able to push to 90%-100% of quoted line speed 99% of the time.
What this chart shows is netflix performance, which is quite different than general network performance. What goes into netflix performance? Total netflix service load, CDN pop load, CDN circuit size, SLA/QOS terms, the choices the netflix client makes about adaptive bitrates and shaping the provider applies to the traffic.
Take a look at the US chart and note the correlations in spikes and dips across all providers at certain times - 10/21 peak, 10/23 valley, 11/13 valley etc. These are indications of aggregate stream load netflix wide and are an indication that netflix manages their peak throughput to be pretty close to their max throughput (as well they should). But it's also a strong indication that if 10% of netflix customers switched to a competitor overnight average stream performance for netflix would jump noticeably, perhaps even 10%.
How their adaptive streaming works is another huge factor. First they measure your current performance to the CDN POP and then explicitly chooses to use only 60% of that[1]. So add 40% to all the ISP numbers out of the gate. TCP+HTTP overhead is another ~4%. Downloading something else while you stream? If the streaming sees more than a few headroom faults (ie 1000ms worth of data takes more than 600ms) the system will quickly adapt down in bitrate trying to do its best to never hard fault (buffering). It likely is considerable more conservative in moving the stream speed back up. Customer using 802.11b? Max throughput there is ~5mbps, so netflix will use a max of 3mbps. In an urban area on a congested channel? You may only see 1-2mbps at times. Microwave on? etc.
Lastly, with the news that netflix is 20% of ISP traffic at night the network providers have every incentive to manage that traffic down. Look at the best US performer at ~2700kbits. The fastest HD stream is 4800kbits - Nearly twice the speed. Worst case if an ISP allowed full rate streaming they might increase their peak network load by 10% or more.
Who was it that announced netflix is now 20% of night time traffic? Our old friend sandvine, provider of the DPI gear made famous by comcast using it to throttle bittorrent. This tells us two things - 1) sandvine is on net at at least a few major broadband providers and 2) by announcing that number they are implicitly telling network managers that they can help reduce that traffic.
Netflix makes it very easy to do fine grained control on bitrates. If you are watching the HTTP headers you know exactly which customers are on which stream rate without having to count the throughput. Most users won't notice a QOE change from 4800kbits to 3200kbits. Want to cut your network traffic? Use DPI to identify the higher rates and label them bulk-toofast. Then either explicitly rate limit them, give them a low queue priority or simply route the acks through a big buffer under performing router or indirect route. Once the adaptive bitrate slows down to a rate you like switch the label. The more subtle of these methods are much, much harder to detect than the comcast RST's were, and wouldn't technically violate any net neutrality rules in place.
[1] http://www.breakingpointsystems.com/community/blog/emulating...
edit: Ah well, I guess that will do, can't make them stand up in a column.
I hasten to add that part of this must be a function of competition here. I can choose from Comcast, DSL or AT&T's U-verse thing, so they have some incentive to provide a compelling bandwidth offering. Still – at least where data service is concerned, Comcast delivers.
their problem is customer service and their corporate policies. i avoid calling them at all costs and only do so once i know for sure that my problem is unfixable on my side.
i've had my cable mistakenly disconnected a few times, or a line cut from utility work.
i'd also note the irony of having online support for internet connectivity issues.
By showing that they care ALOT about what their users care about, content delivery performance, they demonstrate credibility, a key component of trust.
Consistent trust building exercises such as these does more than a temporary sale ever could for long term customer loyalty, even if it can’t be perfectly measured.
I would like to see more companies try the same, even if they can’t prove the ROI on a spreadsheet before hand.
Why use a spreadsheet when you have a perfectly good gut you can check to see if it is the right thing to do?
p.s., in case you missed it -- 21 Dec FCC ruling: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-12-21/ne...
If we were then to rank ISP's on throughput, even though a rural ISP is serving a critical and under-served part of our community, they would be rewarded with negative perception.
On an absolute scale, it's so-so customer service, but on a relative scale it's amaizing how many things they don't do wrong compared to other ISPs I've worked with (Comcast in particular)
Almost anytime of the day, I can saturate my DSL line's download bandwidth from fast sites such as Amazon S3. But Netflix doesn't always stream in HD even though my link is faster than what's required (4800 Kbps).
I suspect the bottleneck is at Netflix's end.
However, ISPs do "manage" Netflix traffic. How they choose to manage it varies by ISP, but it might be something as simple as giving streaming traffic a different priority over web traffic, which tends to be more latency sensitive. Joe sixpack tends to complain when his browser takes longer than a few seconds to load a page, which ties up a customer service line. If your Netflix stream automatically switches from HD to non-HD, you might not even notice because they've made their software pretty good at adapting to changes in available bandwidth.
So the 15 Mbps is way above anything in the Netflix graph.
So, the ISP can't always be the bottleneck keeping data rates below 3 Mbps.