Netflix to cut streaming quality in Europe for 30 days

It's a logical fallacy to suggest that anyone not liking a business's practices should automatically cancel their associated services.

I wouldn't be putting my money towards a business i felt was bending me over to give me a corporate rogering, i suppose it's a question of how far does your principal extend - enough to moan on the internet but carry on using the service anyway or enough to actually vote with your wallet and go somewhere else?
 
I wouldn't be putting my money towards a business i felt was bending me over to give me a corporate rogering, i suppose it's a question of how far does your principal extend - enough to moan on the internet but carry on using the service anyway or enough to actually vote with your wallet and go somewhere else?
The former. Voting with my wallet would be cutting my nose off to spite my face. A major human rights issue this is not.

I'm not the first to moan on the internet and do nothing about it and I sure won't be the last. Everyone does it at some point, even though everyone loves to think of themselves as highlighly principled people of action.
 
I've thought about it but probably won't; for the sake of a fiver (or whatever the reduction ratio multiplied by the number of months in force multiplied the monthly cost is) it's not worth the effort.

Would people be fine with paying the same if ISPs started throttling individual bandwidth?
 
No, because that's what Netflix and all adaptive streaming already does. And also what the internet already does.

The point was, if 13% of all internet consumption is Netflix, and ISPs are now finding they're saturated at peak times with contention for traffic, lowering the maximum bandwidth of Netflix streams would take a substantial load off.

exactly - is there even a need for this with adaptive streaming?

if my ISP can't cope it throttles me and then my netflix stream would automatically reduce in quality.

for example if i could only get 10MB then i wouldn't be able to watch in 4k anyway.
 
exactly - is there even a need for this with adaptive streaming?

if my ISP can't cope it throttles me and then my netflix stream would automatically reduce in quality.

for example if i could only get 10MB then i wouldn't be able to watch in 4k anyway.
But while your Netflix is being throttled to a lesser image quality, or even before...

The kid next door watching YouTube is also being throttled

Their sister watching a webcast from their teacher on how to do long division is going too blurry to read the text

Her mum is on a business call which is dropping quality.

It's about consumption. Keeping the broadband network saturated as a norm isn't in the design and isn't desirable. We're presently in a time of massively increased demand.
 
But while your Netflix is being throttled to a lesser image quality, or even before...

The kid next door watching YouTube is also being throttled

Their sister watching a webcast from their teacher on how to do long division is going too blurry to read the text

Her mum is on a business call which is dropping quality.

It's about consumption. Keeping the broadband network saturated as a norm isn't in the design and isn't desirable. We're presently in a time of massively increased demand.

I get that but surely we should be holding isp and mobile operators to account for lack of provisions for emergency situations.

I mean I'm trying to make calls on my mobile. Only one in twenty are connecting. I'm not exaggerating either.

There will be peaks and troughs. I'm not doing any streaming of anything currently. So I'm not making much use of my 400MB connection.
 
I get that but surely we should be holding isp and mobile operators to account for lack of provisions for emergency situations.

I mean I'm trying to make calls on my mobile. Only one in twenty are connecting. I'm not exaggerating either.

There will be peaks and troughs. I'm not doing any streaming of anything currently. So I'm not making much use of my 400MB connection.
The issue is as well though that private companies also want to offer the lowest price and so I'd imagine capacity is always "just good enough" for most scenarios.
 
I mean I'm trying to make calls on my mobile. Only one in twenty are connecting. I'm not exaggerating either.
Good comparison - at New Year, call often fail and texts go through hours late. The system's over capacity, we see it every year. But because it's a few hours once a year, the networks don't feel that justifies a capacity increase.
 
Good comparison - at New Year, call often fail and texts go through hours late. The system's over capacity, we see it every year. But because it's a few hours once a year, the networks don't feel that justifies a capacity increase.

mobile calls are a joke just now. even if it connects it's breaking up, lag, pausing, then comes back. i can't believe no extra capacity is built in just in case. capitalism for you.
 
AFAIK, BNG is basically a generic term for what used to be called a BRAS or LNS (which are both essentially the same thing) I think the thing is, traditionally everything would be done over L2TP tunnels, which is why it was called an LNS, (L2TP network server), (think old Cisco 7200s connecting to BT with ATM).

However today, MPLS Pseudowires or things like PWHT (Psuedowire headend termination) might be used instead of L2TP, so the end device (BNG) is still terminating PPPoE sessions, just not using traditional L2TP, so the term has generally changed to call it a BNG, to better reflect the different types of access technology available, rather than everything relying solely on L2TP.

Cisco's take on it, if you're interested; https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/do...-cg52xasr9k/b-bng-cg52xasr9k_chapter_010.html
Thanks Screech. Would be interested in what you do for a living.

Apologies if this is derailing
 
Thanks Screech. Would be interested in what you do for a living.

I'm a network engineer, spent most of my life working for ISPs and networking vendors (worked for Juniper for a while) I used to do a lot of core network stuff, but then later lots of Broadband work, mostly high scale BNG stuff. I ended up getting poached by the games industry, mostly good timing with a bit of good luck - now I help run a global low-latency eSports network.
 
I'm a network engineer, spent most of my life working for ISPs and networking vendors (worked for Juniper for a while) I used to do a lot of core network stuff, but then later lots of Broadband work, mostly high scale BNG stuff. I ended up getting poached by the games industry, mostly good timing with a bit of good luck - now I help run a global low-latency eSports network.
Nice dude. I'm currently working for a Juniper partner. Got my JNCIP-ENT and JNCIS-SEC so far. Next up is the SP.
 
ISP's arent saturated.

Yes they are, highly saturated - but it varies depending on where they are.

We maintain thousands of peerings with most ISPs all over the world, and we collect performance telemetry from hundreds of millions of players, playing our game globally. Using data science, we can see exactly when things are good and when they're bad.

Because we mostly measure ping and packet loss, when for example - 50k players on a specific ISP all show a huge ping spike in the monitoring graphs between the hours of 6pm and 9pm, we know that the ISP in question is probably congested.

When congestion occurs inside an ISP, the big fat buffers on internet routers will start to fill up, this will incur additional latency, if congestion increases further - the latency will get worse and packet loss will occur when the buffers and queues fill up and get exhausted. Because our game traffic is very small packet size (65-150 bytes) it's very sensitive to delay and buffering, so we can see the effects of congestion better and earlier than most.

Right now, I can tell you some interesting facts - which we're quite surprised by;

Almost all the UK ISPs are performing very well, with very little in the way of any ping spikes or packet loss at peak time - this tells me they still have capacity and are not congested yet, mostly. From our metrics, the only one which appears to be struggling is EE, all the others are doing very well.

However, that's only the UK - just about everywhere else is carnage;

Almost all ISPs in the EU are struggling, with Germany having a really bad time, Italy is on it's knees from 6-9pm, and almost all the other EU ISPs are struggling, with the exception of Scandinavia.

US is all over the place depending where you look, Spectrum is sucking pretty bad, but again - depends where you look.

Not sure why netflix and other companies are doing this. But isp's won't complain because they are using less bandwidth.

You have to understand how the system functions to understand why Netflix are doing what they're doing.

The problem Netflix has; they have so much capacity, they could easily overwhelm most ISPs if all customers started watching their content. If that happened and infrastructure started falling over because of Netflix (which it easily could), providers would probably start de-peering / rate-limiting / disabling Netflix content on their networks, to prioritise normal traffic and remove the congestion. Because remember - the customers of the ISP are not paying their provider anything for Netflix access - they're simply paying Netflix.

By volunteering to turn down the quality, and reduce the bandwidth, Netflix are simply making sure they don't end up 'annoying' ISPs to the point where they become forcibly rate-limited or disabled.. Lets face it - we can all still watch it anyway, they're just being careful - they're not stupid, they have some clever people working there.
 
Back
Top Bottom