Netflix Open Connect

[richy]

This is just a thought and I am not suggesting it as something for now but for a few years time when sprint has a significant amount of 2500 LTE lit. 

 

Netflix Open Connect is basically a cacheing server for netflix content that is 'on network'. The idea being that rather than an ISP's customer streaming Netflix from their home over the internet it only has to come from the ISP's internal network. Cableco's refuse to do it because they hate netflix because people are dumping their expensive TV packages for it. 

 

My thinking was that as Sprint develops its network it may be able to come to a deal with Netflix. Netflix normally gives these servers away for free, it saves them having to host them and pay for the bandwidth. Maybe they can figure out a deal where they give Sprint A LOT of the servers. They cost maybe $6k each. How about one in each lte core and in areas where activity is the highest they can put a server on each site. Sprint could also consider charging $5 a month for the access.

 

The downside is it is actively encouraging mobile video use which eats bandwidth. The flip side is they can use it to push h265 (which reduces bandwidth usage for video), they can restrict access to 2500mhz connections, they can potentially make some money off what people are doing anyway and turn it into a plus and it will go a long way to improving netflix experience which will encourage netflix to drop the coin on the hardware. If the servers were placed on sites then it would also reduce backhaul usage at those sites.They could also limit streams to 720p which to be fair is enough for mobile. 

 

Perhaps its a little too mad, but if folks are going to use mobile  VOD maybe it can be turned into a plus and controlled and monetised.

[richy]

Oh and it would hurt Dish, which would make me ooooohh soooo sad. 

[Vette]

Imagine Sprint putting these connections on the bandwidth rich 2500Mhz network, freeing the 1900 and 800 LTE from some of the heavy video use. That would be awesome.

[SpenceSouth]

I feel that for the most part you either hear about people streaming like crazy from Netflix to their phones or not at all, so I don't think this could be a problem for the most part.  The ones who love Netflix on their phones are going to do it anyways, and the ones who don't simply won't.  

 

[swintec]

Wasnt the idea behind this the Netflix SuperHD quality, where only ISPs who signed up for it, would allow their customers to see that new playback quality?  Last I knew they scrapped this and allow SuperHD for any ISP now.

 

Also, cable companies (and most other ISPs) chose not to sign up for this, not because they hate netflix but because it shifted the costs on to the ISP.  It messed with peering agreements and the like that many national ISPs have and are beneficial to them.

[richy]

Wasnt the idea behind this the Netflix SuperHD quality, where only ISPs who signed up for it, would allow their customers to see that new playback quality?  Last I knew they scrapped this and allow SuperHD for any ISP now.

 

Also, cable companies (and most other ISPs) chose not to sign up for this, not because they hate netflix but because it shifted the costs on to the ISP.  It messed with peering agreements and the like that many national ISPs have and are beneficial to them.

 

Netflix takes money directly from cable companies pockets, hence all the fuss over TW making things as difficult as possible for them without upsetting their subs too much. You are right they changed their minds over super HD, TW holding out was hurting them too much. We cancelled our ~$70 a month cable TV package for netflix. I bet TW just LOVE that happening  

 

Peering agreements are agreements to share traffic for free. One of the biggest monestisable assets ISP's have is access to last mile connections, this is what they sell. yes they peer, especially with each other. Their network egress is vastly outweighed by their ingress which is why they can cherrypick their peering partners. They peer for free for redundancy and critically for customer experience, better routes, more diverse routes. The money on the other end of the wire is in selling links to data centers, something this wouldn't affect barring some impact on what they sell to amazon if they peer or connect to amazon and if they do it will be on a huge scale so margins will be thin. VOD has vastly changed the already scewed traffic ratio ISP's see, having a netflix content server or servers on network reduces calls to faults and improves customer experience. Reduced cost and reduced churn. It's not a clear cut win, but nor is it a clear cut loss. When netflix starts cutting out and buffering because one route 20 hops down the line is congested a good chunk of viewers will call the isp, some will buy the line its netflix's fault, some won't, its still a traffic driver and a churn driver. I agree it is not entirely a win, my thinking was could it be shaped into a win if it was approached eyes open?  

[swintec]

Netflix takes money directly from cable companies pockets, hence all the fuss over TW making things as difficult as possible for them without upsetting their subs too much. You are right they changed their minds over super HD, TW holding out was hurting them too much.

 

TW was simply the most vocal about it.  Most if not all of the national ISPs did not sign on to it because it was a bum deal for them, as a national ISP and wanting to keep traffic arrangements in their favor a bit more with the likes of Level 3 or Limelight networks, etc and why shouldnt they?  They didnt have any problem with Netflix offering SuperHD through the same medium as they have been using all of these years, in fact the extra bandwidth usage may have benefited the ISP at a national level.  Netflix didnt want to at first naturally because of the additional costs of sending the bandwidth over the internet but i think they realized SuperHD would never really take off unless they changed their tune.