 elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2014-May-29 7:15 pm
Pot, KettleGoogle caused this whole problem when they disabled pre-buffering. | |
|
 | | |
Re: Pot, KettleFunny, I can download data in GBs at full speed for an extended period of time yet I can't stream a 720p or 1080p video on Youtube without some sort of buffering on a 30Mbps connection. Seems to me, my ISP is purposely degrading Youtube performance to some end. Maybe so they can extort money? Me thinks that is the case. Google is not the problem here. | |
|
| | | |
78036364 (banned)
Member
2014-May-29 7:31 pm
Re: Pot, Kettlesaid by sandman_1:Funny, I can download data in GBs at full speed for an extended period of time yet I can't stream a 720p or 1080p video on Youtube without some sort of buffering on a 30Mbps connection. Seems to me, my ISP is purposely degrading Youtube performance to some end. Maybe so they can extort money? Me thinks that is the case. Google is not the problem here. your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | | |
78036364 (banned)
Member
2014-May-30 12:21 am
Re: Pot, Kettlesaid by Napsterbater:said by 78036364:your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight. Not really, did you see what happened to Netflix? same problem for youtube. Sorry no one "purposely" did anything. Continue to believe your conspiracy theories. maybe one day one might come true. Oh by teh way Google has PLENTY of it's own fiber. Wouldn't be wise for someone to f--k with them. They might need to use some of it someday. | |
|
| | | | |  Kasoah
join:2013-08-20
Merced, CA |
Kasoah
Member
2014-May-30 3:16 am
Re: Pot, Kettlewahahahaha | |
|
| | | |
| | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
to sandman_1
Comcast had issues for years. | |
|
|  KoshWe are all Kosh
Premium Member
join:2005-11-16
Z'ha'dum |
Kosh to elray
Premium Member
2014-May-29 8:53 pm
to elray
Killing the pre-buffering ruined the Youtube experience for me. Thankfully Firefox has the 'Youtube Center' add-on, which among other things, allows you to DISABLE the 'superior' DASH Playback 'feature'. | |
|
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2014-May-30 2:40 am
Re: Pot, KettleA firefox plugin works for the few who know to look for it and install it, everyone else is screwed.
Google broke something that didn't need fixing. | |
|
| | | KoshWe are all Kosh
Premium Member
join:2005-11-16
Z'ha'dum |
Kosh
Premium Member
2014-May-30 2:59 pm
Re: Pot, Kettlesaid by elray:Google broke something that didn't need fixing. From a user perspective, definitely. From the perspective of Google's network team and their accountants, no way - they save a ton of bandwidth using DASH. That way they can reduce costs and pay their executives mo' money. Everyone wins!!! | |
|
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2014-May-30 4:05 pm
Re: Pot, Kettlesaid by Kosh:said by elray:Google broke something that didn't need fixing. From a user perspective, definitely. From the perspective of Google's network team and their accountants, no way - they save a ton of bandwidth using DASH. That way they can reduce costs and pay their executives mo' money. Everyone wins!!! According to Google and its minions, bandwidth is copious and plentiful. That's why we should all be using "the cloud" and Chromebooks. Killing the user experience means fewer eyeballs to watch the ads - that seems counterproductive. | |
|
 Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
1 recommendation |
Mike
Mod
2014-May-29 7:19 pm
That's depressingOkay so I'm on FiOS.
"View other providers in your area"
Only other choice is Comcast.
damn it. | |
|
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN |
BlueC
Member
2014-May-29 7:26 pm
StatsThese statistics will look bad for any ISP that offers an economy tier, or offers public WiFi service (as those stats will drop the overall ranking and make it appear as if the ISP cannot sustain HD streams).
Mediocre at best, unfortunately. Hopefully they'll adjust things later. | |
|
| | |
78036364 (banned)
Member
2014-May-29 7:32 pm
Re: Statsalso I bet it doesn't take into account people who deliberately stream in lower quality even though they could be streaming in HD. | |
|
| | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2014-May-29 8:00 pm
Re: StatsI don't know. It says my ISP has 96% HD. While my ISP has 0 streaming issues, I doubt 96% of videos watched are even offered in HD. | |
|
| | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
to 78036364
What I want to know is why my YouTube has never defaulted to 1080p- it always defaults to 480p and then I have to manually change it... | |
|
| | | | BiggA |
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-May-29 8:18 pm
Re: StatsActually, it will go to 720p, but not 1080p... | |
|
| | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2014-May-29 8:25 pm
Re: StatsMine defaults to 360P despite the fact that my internet is fast enough to stream their 4K. | |
|
| |
| BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
to BlueC
I'm sure they have ways of filtering that out. People could have slow wifi too. | |
|
| | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN |
BlueC
Member
2014-May-29 9:38 pm
Re: Statssaid by BiggA:I'm sure they have ways of filtering that out. People could have slow wifi too. How so? How would they be able to pinpoint the difference between someone being limited by the service tier they're subscribed to and a slow WiFi connection (something the ISP has basically no control over)? It's very misleading to take a small sample of experiences and weigh that against the vast majority of user experiences within a network. Most ISPs should be able to support HD streams. It just so happens a lot of subscribers tend to take the cheapest tier, and the cheapest tier could easily be under the throughput required to sustain HD. | |
|
| | | BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT  ·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2014-May-30 6:24 pm
Re: StatsIt's obviously driven by congestion up the network or on peering ports, based on the time based nature of it, so customers that are always slow can be counted differently than ones that are sometimes fast and sometimes slow, and they can also figure out what a "baseline" percentage of customers who just have crappy equipment is in order to compare ISPs against one another. | |
|
 tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-May-29 7:34 pm
excellent results here...... on comcast at 1080, higher rates stumble due to a crappy video card.
but almost all western Washington providers are PRETTY good at the measured 720p
the exceptions are in the san juan islands (limited backhaul) and Oly peninsula based companies (somewhat limited backhaul) | |
|
|  bmccoy
join:2013-03-18
Port Orchard, WA |
bmccoy
Member
2014-May-29 8:23 pm
Re: excellent results here...Weird, they're identifying Wave Broadband as Astound Broadband in western WA. Astound only serves the SF Bay area (though they're Wave's sister company). These listings could use a bit of work, still. | |
|
 jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2014-May-29 7:41 pm
Hold On Now"When your ISP receives your video from YouTube, they begin the important job of carrying it across their network to your home. They must ensure there’s enough capacity where they receive the data from YouTube. Otherwise, your video streaming quality will suffer."
Exactly what does Google mean by this statement? Clearly this is the responsibility of the company sending the data, and not the responsibility of the ISP to support their paying customers. Otherwise, what the hell was Netflix doing paying Comcast to ensure there was enough capacity for Comcast's interconnections and "last mile" to its captive customer base?
It should be Google's responsibility from what Comcast told me. | |
|
|  nekkidtruthYISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582
|
Re: Hold On NowGoogle means exactly what it says. Herein lies the problem though. Netflix set a pretty dangerous precedent with regards to net neutrality when they signed a deal with Comcast. However, they didn't have a choice.
The ISP is responsible to provide you with enough capacity (especially at the prices you pay your ISP) to reach whatever content you desire. Rather than adjust to accommodate their own customers, they indulge in sketchy business practices such as what Google is stating and the end result (aside from pissing their own customers off) allows them to double dip. Getting paid twice for the same data. | |
|
| | | |
78036364 (banned)
Member
2014-May-29 8:03 pm
Re: Hold On Nowsaid by nekkidtruth:Google means exactly what it says. Herein lies the problem though. Netflix set a pretty dangerous precedent with regards to net neutrality when they signed a deal with Comcast. However, they didn't have a choice. That Comcast deal is not the same as the "fast lane" deals everyone is having a hissy fit about. And even a rock solid net neutrality law would not prevent Comcast type deals. All Netflix did was swap Cogent for Comcast when it comes to Comcast traffic. | |
|
| | | nekkidtruthYISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582
1 recommendation |
Re: Hold On NowWhich shouldn't have been necessary had Comcast been doing what they're suppose to be doing by catering to their customers. Instead, we now have double dipping and it smacks net neutrality in the face. You're talking about the Netflix deal with Comcast like it isn't basically the same thing as a "fast lane" deal. They are the same and Comcast is double dipping with both. | |
|
| | | jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
to 78036364
said by 78036364:That Comcast deal is not the same as the "fast lane" deals everyone is having a hissy fit about. And even a rock solid net neutrality law would not prevent Comcast type deals. All Netflix did was swap Cogent for Comcast when it comes to Comcast traffic. In 2010, wasn't it Level 3 Communications that Netflix was using that was having issues with Comcast? Seems like there really wasn't much of a choice for Netflix to do business with Comcast's captive customers no matter what option they attempted to use, so they had to directly pay Comcast. I think I've got it now. If your business is in a position with dominant control of an area with no legitimate competition and no alternatives for your customer base, then you are free to use this leverage to demand payment for services that would otherwise already have been paid for in a situation where competition existed. | |
|
| | | | nekkidtruthYISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON |
Re: Hold On NowBingo. Toss in they now get paid from both ends and well... | |
|
| | | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
to jmn1207
They could have continued to use LimeLight and Akamai. It was Netflix's decision to abandon them. | |
|
| | | | | jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2014-May-29 10:39 pm
Re: Hold On Nowsaid by silbaco:They could have continued to use LimeLight and Akamai. It was Netflix's decision to abandon them. How long before Comcast demanded additional payment from LimeLight or Akamai if Netflix used either of them? I guess if Comcast wanted more money, they could simply let these peering points saturate as well. In the end, unless something changes, there really was only one option for Netflix to deal with Comcast, and that was to give them money for something they already paid for with their own ISP. Let's hope that Comcast does not become too greedy. Is one new skyscraper going to be enough? | |
|
| |
It's YouTube that wack not your ISPSmaller video services have no problem showing videos | |
|
| | |
78036364 (banned)
Member
2014-May-29 8:04 pm
Re: It's YouTube that wack not your ISPbecause they don't have 1% the traffic YouTube does | |
|
| |
Google Fiber declares itself HD VerifiedBut not the others in KC. Surprise... » dl.dropboxusercontent.co ··· iber.pngNot sure how meaningful this is given that some people have the 'free' 5M service. | |
|
| silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2014-May-29 8:11 pm
Re: Google Fiber declares itself HD VerifiedSome people also have 1.5Mbps/3Mbps service from the incumbents to save money. That can distort results. | |
|
| | |
to existenz
Here is what I get when I try to pull it up over TWC. Don't know why the Google wont show the right thing. | |
|
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA
2 edits |
silbaco
Premium Member
2014-May-29 8:08 pm
RankingsCould use some work. It seems to identify Mediacom as At&t and in many areas it doesn't even show up. It groups me in on to the wrong market. And has some ISPs listed in areas they don't even offer service.
Edit: The results are not the same for everyone. If I use a VPN I can't even look at my market because there is not enough info. | |
|
 Yes
@50.182.54.x |
Yes
Anon
2014-May-29 8:54 pm
Youtube getting HD my area 93-98% of the timeYoutube is getting HD in my zipcode 93-98% of the time. 
| |
|
|
••• |
|
1 edit |
Thank you Frontier for showing that you are Mediocre (at best)in my area!!!
We are moving to another ISP for this reason, among others!! | |
|
| |
Time WarnerTime Warner in my area is only SD. Nothing I didnt already know. But I would love to be able to use SD over what CenturyLink provides me with on DSL. | |
|
| |
disconnected
Anon
2014-May-31 6:45 pm
160p is all they give me on dslDuring the fall and winter my yotube stream would default to 160p an even at that speed, id have 80% with buffering to get 20% actual view time. | |
|
|
|
·
