Topic 'BHC Throttle you tube?' in forum 'Bright House Networks' - dslreports.com

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:53:47 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

said by Beachie:

Just for clarification, The "Christmas 2009 Bright House Fiasco" only affected CFL.

I noticed that as well. At least from what I saw. Oh I see why you might be clarifying. I suppose then the ""Christmas 2009 Bright House CFL Fiasco" would be a better name for it. :) Duly noted.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:30:23 EDT

Beachie posted : Just for clarification, The "Christmas 2009 Bright House Fiasco" only affected CFL.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:27:21 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

said by Nick123456:

Para, I would agree, But the holiday outage wasn't JUST google.
It was a crap shoot if something worked. Now granted google seemed the hardest hit. But I had trouble reaching servers at our NOC, And the worst part, it was only SOME of them...
2 servers, same subnet, right next to eachother in the rack. one worked great, one i could barely ping.

I did a little more research on this and have found that you are indeed correct that it (The "Christmas 2009 Bright House Fiasco") wasn't merely Google related sites (and the exceptions do not appear to be explainable by google ads). It was mainly for myself and many others but I have found very good evidence that others experienced more widespread issues December 2x, 2009. It's pretty hard for me to argue with the clear shots of non-google sites not loading. I will admit when I am wrong about something. :)

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndj90q6ZZpw

I'm not sure that I agree with all his conclusions regarding the cause at this time, but nevertheless it is an interesting video.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:41:23 EDT

Nick123456 posted : Ispgeek, I completely agree.
The point I was making was it was deeper then just a issue connecting to google. I stumbled upon it trying to ping our sip box at the noc (my phone didn't work). After I started putting 2 and 2 together I started pinging other things and found them to be lossy as well. Not to mention the google based load problems.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:11:45 EDT

paradigmfl posted : As I promised to do so I will note that I did some more testing partially in relation to this issue (and beachie also asked for a status update within this thread).

I started another thread because the focus isn't on whether it is not throttling as this thread is focused on. It is on general identification of a BH specific issue and subsequent diagnosis of the problem and/or resolving it.

»Investigating Bright House specific Youtube related Issues

I will be posting further tests and thoughts to that topic. This one is long enough anyway. :)

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:11:05 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by Beachie:

Well?

A very deep subject Beachie :)

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:27:09 EDT

paradigmfl posted : As explained on the Measurement Lab site, Nano is intended to test for overall network neutrality violations along the lines of what is being described here in this thread. Shaperprobe tests a very small subset of what nano does asnd isn't exactly the correct tool for the job (it doesn't test for discrimination based on destination which is what this thread is almost entirely about). You won't get data right away from Nano because it works very differently than shaperprobe. They need to setup an account for you to see the current results and the data is collected over time.

I have been trying to get some of my friends to run nano in this area and I think it's a great idea for anyone reading this who is interested to do the same. Nano is potentially a great way to put these sort of questions to rest once and for all. If only they had a client for windows though so more could participate.

Incidentally that Google helps to heavily sponsor these sorts of tools makes it even harder for me to believe that Google is responsible for "Throttling" BH user's YT traffic (as some have seemingly accused or proposed as being more likely than BH throttling YT). Of course stranger things have happened, but it would seem rather silly, wouldn't it?

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:28:41 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted : Since measurement labs was mentioned but nobody bothered to post their test results here are mine. As you can see no traffic shapping is taking place. You all can take the same test here: »www.measurementlab.net/measureme···ols#nano

Notice I'm also getting the speeds as promised to yet another offnet site. The test above is the Diffprobe. I'll throw nano on my linux box and play around as well just for grins...hell it's raining...got nothing better to do.

I posted a screen pic because copy and paste text can be easily fudged...don't want anyone questioning the results :)

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:17:26 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by Nick123456:

That was in reply to the Christmas time downtime.
If you mean explain that sure.

Gotcha and after re-reading it I understand. Not entirely sure I agree with it. Yea, sites with google ads or any other ad streaming media will appear to hang or load slower if the content provider (in this case google or the route to the ad server) is impaired BUT this will not affect a properly configured server or it's ping times.

I run a high volume site and from time to time these route issues will affect this, that or the other network or in some cases its the actual ad server itself. The load on my server doesn't increase at all (sometimes it decreases short term).

The hang is taking place at your browser and not the server. When an adsense ad is served it comes directly from the ad server itself and not from the server hosting the webpage. The webpage being served to you from xyz.com has javascript that pulls the ad from the adsense server directly...this goes nowhere but to your specific browser. Now it will certainly appear that its your website being affected....but it really isn't...it's your broswer that hangs.

This being said...no additional load is being placed on the server you are visiting because of google ad serving issues (regardless of type)...therefore pings would not be affected directly to your host server.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:41:43 EDT

Nick123456 posted : That was in reply to the Christmas time downtime.
If you mean explain that sure.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:01:12 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by nieleyde:

I have to agree with mikeynet. After being frustrated with YouTube connectivity for over a year, I decided to do a quick search for BHC throttling. I came across this page, and I tried the recommendation to use opendns. YouTube was instantly working better. Thanks for the recommendation.

Connecting to a site and streaming from that site are two different beasts. Was your problem in resolving the site (meaning site loading) or streaming the video. if the issue was resolving then a change of dns servers might help you depending on what the problem really was.

On the otherhand if the issue was streaming....going to OpenDNS would not have resolved the problem as thats not what DNS is used for...DNS serves one main purpose....resolving a domain name to the physical numeric address for a specific server (IP address).

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:22:07 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by Nick123456:

Yes, many sites do use google ad's and thats what made it seem a much wider problem.
The whole time, ping's were fine, just about 75% loss. Once I started pinging more things, I found about 50% of them all had the same problem. (google, yahoo, etc..)

Feel free to PM me if you want to compare tracert's.

Please explain your observations. i wish this was in another thread but you're here, I'm here and I want to hear what you have to say about this.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:46:12 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

said by Beachie:

Well?

I'm working on gathering data still in the best possible manner. When I find something one way or another I will definitely post it here.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:28:11 EDT

Beachie posted : Well?

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:03:18 EDT

nieleyde posted : I have to agree with mikeynet. After being frustrated with YouTube connectivity for over a year, I decided to do a quick search for BHC throttling. I came across this page, and I tried the recommendation to use opendns. YouTube was instantly working better. Thanks for the recommendation.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:31:23 EDT

Nick123456 posted : Yes, many sites do use google ad's and thats what made it seem a much wider problem.
The whole time, ping's were fine, just about 75% loss. Once I started pinging more things, I found about 50% of them all had the same problem. (google, yahoo, etc..)

Feel free to PM me if you want to compare tracert's.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:18:31 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

said by butter:

Paradigm I compared my speed results from Youtube with the screen shot you posted yesterday. I am having the same trends in speed as you are. I wonder if we can find any similarities.

We might be able to. I just ran across Google's (and others) project on detecting shaping/throttling, etc. It's rather interesting and seems as though it might be just the right thing for the job perhaps:

»www.measurementlab.net/measureme···ols#nano
»www.gtnoise.net/nano/

About NANO

NANO identifies performance degradations that result from network neutrality violation by an Internet service provider (ISP), such as, differential treatment of specific classes of applications, users, or destinations by the ISP. Existing systems for detecting differential treatment are typically specific to an application or to a particular differentiation mechanism. Because ISPs can change differentiation policies and mechanisms, users need a method to detect differentiation, regardless of the applications that might be subject to differentiation and to the mechanisms used to achieve it. Such a scheme would make detection both robust and difficult to evade. To distinguish differentiation from other causes of degradation (e.g., overload, misconfiguration, failure), NANO uses a statistical method to establish causal relationship between an ISP and observed service performance. NANO agents deployed at participating clients across the Internet collect performance data for selected services and report this information to centralized servers, which analyze the measurements to establish causal relationships between an ISP's policy and performance degradations.

Beautiful.

I'm going to get nanoagent and the shaperprobe compiled (I run linux, non debian/ubuntu so I will need to compile these myself) tomorrow and go from there. Nano (the alpha nanoagent) looks very promising. For windows users I see a binary for shaperprobe but it doesn't seem as though there is anything for windows with nano yet, only linux. Tools like these should help to resolve such questions more definitively. Any one interested in getting to the bottom of this might want to take a look at these tools. :)

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:00:19 EDT

butter posted : Paradigm I compared my speed results from Youtube with the screen shot you posted yesterday. I am having the same trends in speed as you are. I wonder if we can find any similarities.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:43:00 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

That's actually very curious. I'm not really sure myself whether that outage issue was only google sites or not. I know in my experience it mainly hit google sites but I've heard other things mentioned. One person here in this topic brought up a great point I overlooked regarding the Goggle ads affecting other sites but I don't think this would apply to your NOC and ping times.

FWIW, at this moment I am experiencing the buffer issues for some videos but not others when using the direct connection. speedtest results indicate a good connection overall ( 8.4 Mbps DL, 1.1 UL). The test video works fine though rangling from 500 - 1400 kbps.

This looks like a difficult problem to nail down other than to show that simply using a proxy seems to resolve it. I'm keeping traceroutes in order to see if I can find a pattern but that's somewhat of a long shot.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:40:01 EDT

Nick123456 posted : Para, I would agree, But the holiday outage wasn't JUST google.
It was a crap shoot if something worked. Now granted google seemed the hardest hit. But I had trouble reaching servers at our NOC, And the worst part, it was only SOME of them...
2 servers, same subnet, right next to eachother in the rack. one worked great, one i could barely ping.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:12:50 EDT

paradigmfl posted : ISPgeek, with all due respect I'm just going to place you on ignore. I've stated my thinking and have been very verbose. I believe your post clearly misrepresents my position (I haven't submitted them not naming the vendor as some sort of "proof of claim" -- that's ridiculous, it's only suspicious.) and I will say no more other than to state that. What I believe and do not believe should be evident from my posts to this topic.

I will not see any further posts from you. Take care.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:26:05 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by paradigmfl:

sigh. I never posted that quote before though I did post the link previously to that blog but people could have easily missed BH admitting the problem to be on their end -- not Google's. It's extremely relevant because it tells us how their network handles sites like youtube.

Para,

ISP's are entitled to have equipment and related vendor issues from time to time. It's the nature of the business. Most of these events are short lived and they move on and learn from the experience. You seem to keep focusing on these events as empirical evidence of your claim and frankly there's nothing in any of those posts that would be reasonable justification for one to come to any conclusion even remotely close.

You make reference in a previous post that BHN did not disclose which vendor was having difficulty and hinted that this was some form of proof of your claim. Honestly it doesn't matter who the vendor was, just that it was and the issue was resolved. There is no deep conspiracy as you are so fond of suggesting.

Now this is the last I have to say about this. Based on everything I've seen here in this thread and in all the other threads you've posted (and also what I know)...there is not one shred of anything to indicate that Bright House is engaged in such activity. Nor do they have any motivation to do so by all accounts.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:04:56 EDT

paradigmfl posted : sigh. I never posted that quote before though I did post the link previously to that blog but people could have easily missed BH admitting the problem to be on their end -- not Google's. It's extremely relevant because it tells us how their network handles sites like youtube.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:59:32 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted : You've already posted this information....why post it again?

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:43:34 EDT

paradigmfl posted : Here's a snippet from the statement Bright House made to the press taking responsibility (well blaming it on a vendor's equipment) :

"Here is the full statement from Craven:

A hardware problem experienced by a Bright House Networks vendor caused some Bright House Networks customers to experience intermittent problems accessing some Internet websites. The issue was resolved at 11 p.m. Sunday. Bright House Networks Internet service was never down. The situation only affected some customers’ ability to access certain Internet sites.

Customer credits will not be given because at no time was Internet service down. It was a latency issue in which some customers experienced intermittent problems accessing certain websites. The issue was caused by a hardware problem experienced by a Bright House Networks vendor."

As reported by the Orlando Sentinel @ »blogs.orlandosentinel.com/etan_o···t-page-2

Alternate Article: »www.wesh.com/news/22071288/detail.html (includes a video)

Here the Article states that they blame a vendor being overloaded by holiday traffic: »www.wftv.com/news/22069907/detail.html

In my opinion it is VERY logical to say that Bright House is routing Google traffic differently and that this is being done somewhere on their end and under their control (assuming they choose the vendor and specify the terms). Though this is not necessarily throttling it may just be that they use a certain upstream provider for their Google traffic.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:33:23 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

said by botld92z9:

[

That entire problem was related to anything Google related. Many other websites, including this one (dslreports) wouldn't load as well because they use Google ads of some sort. Doubeclick, googleads, etc. I was able to get around the problem of going to websites like dslreports and others that use the google ad network by using a firefox plugin to block ads from any of the google ad networks. At the time I had blocked like 5 different domains. Once I did that I was able to browse like normal except reaching any site directly that was Google related. No youtube, no Google.com...

Yep. But the thing is that BH, not Google, ultimately took responsibility for the problem citing a problem with equipment from a vendor. Also Youtube is owned by Google. That's why I suggest that it is highly likely that something BH is doing is responsible for this...it was the case in the past. Otherwise why did they take responsibility for the problem citing equipment as opposed to blaming google?

Prior to that incident I always tended to blame google's servers for the issue. But that incident and putting 2 and 2 together made me stop and suspect that it might be something BH is doing instead.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:27:22 EDT

botld92z9 posted :

said by paradigmfl
2. The past incident occurring around December 27, 2009 in which it was found that certain high traffic websites (mainly google related, youtube, etc)
[/BQUOTE :

That entire problem was related to anything Google related. Many other websites, including this one (dslreports) wouldn't load as well because they use Google ads of some sort. Doubeclick, googleads, etc. I was able to get around the problem of going to websites like dslreports and others that use the google ad network by using a firefox plugin to block ads from any of the google ad networks. At the time I had blocked like 5 different domains. Once I did that I was able to browse like normal except reaching any site directly that was Google related. No youtube, no Google.com...

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:23:11 EDT

botld92z9 posted :

said by BHNtechXpert I think there may have been a crossed post somewhere. I have scrolled back and can't find where I said anything to you at all relating to that. If I base it on memory...even less so. I did respond to YOU asking for more information but everything else has been directed at another person...not you.
[/BQUOTE :

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:21:48 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

said by butter:

Paradigm, I agree that it would be foolish to completely rule out Bright House's hand in this. But the evidence you give us is circumstantial at best. I think until we can provide hard evidence that Bright House is throttling traffic we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes you are correct the only evidence I have is open to interpretation. I certainly am not saying 100% that BH is throttling youtube. In review I only have this:

1. Traffic speeds are often considerably lower to youtube when using a straight connection to Youtube as opposed to a remote proxy (has been duplicated by another member here though they see it as being geolocation rather than throttling, which is possible).

2. The past incident occurring around December 27, 2009 in which it was found that certain high traffic websites (mainly google related, youtube, etc) were not loading or were loading extremely slow for many bright house members. In the end Bright House admitted a unspecified piece of equipment from a unspecified vendor was responsible. Regarding this incident from the 2nd link given in my previous post and other replies from others we have established that the issue was not directly DNS related and that it involved the way routing to certain websites was done based on destination IP and other factors (one dslreports member provided screenshots of traceroute output).

This does not prove that it is shaping by any means. Although given #2 I think it is very probable and accurate to say that certain high traffic websites ARE routed differently than other websites. Though this is not necessary throttling from a technical standpoint.

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Alternate Theory 1: Bright House routes traffic from certain high traffic websites over certain routes which are more prone to capacity issues. Due to this fact at times certain websites not routed there will still get the correct downstream, however sites like youtube do not when over saturated and routed over these routes/servers. The Dec. 27th issue made this all the more apparent. Though this is not technically throttling, it might have the same effect and it may or may not have been done this way by design.

Other theories as to why this happens:

2. Youtube throttling

3. Youtube utilizing geolocation with the one BH uses in the given region being oversaturated for many months/years now.

4. Outright throttling/shaping being done by Bright House

5. General Oversaturation within Youtube.

There are various tests which can be done to help provide evidence for one of these or at least rule out others. It might make sense to systematically work on doing this and come up with methods of testing.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:16:55 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by botld92z9:

said by BHNtechXpert:

Not at all. What I was hoping for was more information. Nothing more goin on in my head today. It's kind of hard to repond with anything educated from your original post today or last night. I haven't scrolled back to see what you posted previously as this thread is getting extremely long.

You quoted me and followed with statements about it not being an isolated incident. I've posted the exact same thing in regards to other posters claiming it was ONLY Bright House.

You quoted me and stated that "blanket statements stating it's the ISP are misguided..." when I made no reference to it being my ISP. I simply posted a screenshot and stated that my experience with Youtube is that my downstream from there fluctuated greatly whereas I do not have that issue elsewhere. I made no statement that it is BH's fault... I also didn't outright blame Youtube either.

I have the same exact issue at work with a pathetic little 3mbit connection. It will max out the 3mbit connection, but it fluctuates greatly. That's provider is ATT DSL.

If you have any suggestions for tests to run to help out, since you seem knowledgeable in that area, I'm totally down.

I think there may have been a crossed post somewhere. I have scrolled back and can't find where I said anything to you at all relating to that. If I base it on memory...even less so. I did respond to YOU asking for more information but everything else has been directed at another person...not you.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:57:08 EDT

butter posted : Paradigm, I agree that it would be foolish to completely rule out Bright House's hand in this. But the evidence you give us is circumstantial at best. I think until we can provide hard evidence that Bright House is throttling traffic we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:59:05 EDT

botld92z9 posted :

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:00:49 EDT

paradigmfl posted : Regarding the unmetered limits for dedicated servers being things like 15 Mbps or 25 Mbps, see this link for an example of one:
»www.multiplehost.com/pricing.html (click the drop down box under "Choose your monthly bandwidth / transfer allowance")

Of course this is unrelated to the discussion with BH and youtube, but you seem rather adament about it not being possible so please allow me to educate you on this matter.

Further I have nothing more to say in response to your post other than that if you have facts which clearly show it is Youtube responsible for the problem then please show them in detail here. My position is that at this point it could either be Youtube, Brighthouse, or even someone else responsible though I lean towards it being Bright House. My mind is actually rather open. Is yours?

Regarding me being unreasonable or some sort of conspiracy theorist I think that is silly. The link to the discussion I posted on this forum clearly shows that hundreds of people were complaining of issues reaching sites like youtube and other highly popular sites whereas all other sites were fine. In that thread there are many examples of people verifying that it was not DNS related. In the end Bright House took responsibility for the issue. It is in no way to a conspiracy theory to say that Bright House has had something set up which handles sites like youtube differently than many other sites. They essentially admitted it late last year and we all saw it. Now whether or not that is due to throttling or something else or whether that is actually the issue we are all having now, that is unknown (to me).

Again here's the discussion from this forum:

»[Internet] Brighthouse Internet issues - Titusville, FL

Another interesting discussion on "BrightHouses' Christmas gift" :
»Brighthouse internet Christmas gift - the real issue?

Please read it if you have not already.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:43:59 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by botld92z9:

said by BHNtechXpert:

said by botld92z9:

It's not typical with most of the downloads I experience...

Hence the reason you need to look towards Youtube. Scroll back...this isn't isolated to one provider, pretty much all of them are having the same problem with Youtube at the moment...in fact people are starting to scream about it in different forums and in every case the issue points back to Youtube. Also you must consider that different forms of data transfer take different priorities across each network the data traverses. Blanket statements that it's your ISP are misguided. In most cases it isn't.

Plus you've given no information about your network and use methods at home so its impossible to come to a conclusion based on the minimal amount of information you have provided.

You're in a rather defensive mood today. I haven't at all said it's my provider. In fact, I've been on the other side of this discussion in thinking that it's somewhere off network. Where? I don't know. I've been "pro bright house" in this entire discussion if you scan back over my other posts (they were anonymous under botld92z)...

Not at all. What I was hoping for was more information. Nothing more goin on in my head today. It's kind of hard to repond with anything educated from your original post today or last night. I haven't scrolled back to see what you posted previously as this thread is getting extremely long.

Yea I'll take a look at your previous posts a little later. I'm going shopping...hopefully can get some good deals.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:41:28 EDT

botld92z9 posted :

said by BHNtechXpert:

said by botld92z9:

It's not typical with most of the downloads I experience...

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:28:01 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by paradigmfl:

said by BHNtechXpert:

Okay this is pointless...I've seen enough of your posts now that this doesn't appear to be nearly about the facts as much as it does your "conspiracy theory" mentality towards your provider. I wish you the best of luck in your discovery process and only hope in the end...that you can "see the light". Good luck!

I don't want to get into a flame war but you've been accusatory with me right from the start even questioning my screenshots and getting a 13 Mbps cap from my server provider. I believe I went above and beyond in answering your multiple accusations and distrust of me.

As far as the outage around last christmas here's the thread on broadband reports:

»[Internet] Brighthouse Internet issues - Titusville, FL

1. Notice many saying it is only certain sites doing this.
2. Notice people saying it is NOT DNS related and verifing it.
3. Notice Brighthouse vaguely taking responsibility for the problem.

I do not believe there is any difference between my position and yours other than who we are predisposed to assigning the blame. I am no more a conspiracy theorist than you are. I just want to identify the problem. The fact is that *something* is happening. This is very much about facts for me.

If you don't wish to converse with me then that's fine, take care and I wish you well. But I will still post as I see fit regarding the problem.

Not a flame war at all....I asked you about your 13mb thingy because it points to potentially other things going on. I'm a webmaster, I have used a ton of providers and not one of them offer speed tiers as you stated. I suspected you were seeing inaccurate results which is still my hunch. I know of NO provider that offers bandwidths in the increments you suggest and I've pretty much qualified all of them at one point or another because of the very specific needs of my applications. Nobody was questioning YOU...just the data you were seeing. As for your burst speeds...yes there are a very few hosting providers that do allow you to burst beyond your subscribed bandwidth speeds but as you've stated its only temporary and lasts but just few seconds to minutes.

What I won't do is engage in discussion with someone who won't see beyond their personal bias and the last post you made pretty much clears that up for me. I suspected it all along but the last post says it all. Like I said...I wish you the best of luck in your discovery process. I'm confident in the end Youtube will ultimately be the culprit because I do have the facts and they don't lie. You can continue down the path that your provider is doing something evil but don't expect those of us in the know to follow you. I'm just not going there as it's pointless and without grounds or a shred of fact to support the claim.

Contrary to popular forum myth most providers try extremely hard to deliver a consistent and reliable product however in the internet game there are a host of things that can and do go wrong that are entirely beyond the scope or responsibility of the provider. I understand that consumers in general don't understand this concept. It's okay, maybe providers could do a better job of communicating these things, maybe not...the jury is still out on that one.

In the case of Bright House you are making an unfounded allegation against a provider that has consistently stood out as one of the best providers in the country only second to WOW (which is #1 btw) and with no history of doing anything remotely close to this. If this were Comcast (in their previous life) or Direcway or Wild Blue sure...I would without a doubt side with you but this just isn't the case and the facts don't even support it. Anyway...good luck I gotta go shopping.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:16:19 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:11:01 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by butter:

I think at this point its clear that Bright House is not to blame. I also have done a quick search of the internet and found this link:
»help.youtube.com/group/youtube-i···48910f09

Seems this guy had the same problem and did some research on the culprit. A lot of information about Youtube's server caching and what not. He also mentions the same solution is proxy servers.

I also agree with the privacy concerns about using HideMyass. Luckily, Youtube is not a site that I would be too worried about sensitive information being transmitted. Just make sure you have a unique password and username for youtube outside of the ones you use for banking etc....

Yea butter...I would def. not use HMA for anything that involved secure information. I must admit they have really improved their website since I last trolled around there but still. Also thank you for pointing out the obvious relating to the Youtube issue...there will be those still don't get it...but when you consider that there are a few who still think men never walked on the moon and 911 was a Bush consipiracy it's not surprising...sigh...

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:05:02 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by paradigmfl:

It could be Youtube but I also think it's possible that it is BH.

Does everyone remember the "outage" around last christmas?

»blogs.orlandosentinel.com/etan_o···t-page-2

Many suspected that the issue was possibly caused by some sort of throttling or shaping scheme gone seriously wrong. The issue did not seem to be the DNS either. It seems to be a fact that Brighthouse discriminates at least in some way by how it routes packets. Otherwise why would only certain sites have been affected by this?

Notice also that they never clarified in detail what the problem was exactly or the name of the vendor of the equipment. Very secretive. In fact at first it seems they were even saying it was due to high traffic.

And for every link someone can find accusing youtube, just as many will say it is bright house: »www.google.com/support/forum/p/y···0b&hl=en

Okay this is pointless...I've seen enough of your posts now that this doesn't appear to be nearly about the facts as much as it does your "conspiracy theory" mentality towards your provider. I wish you the best of luck in your discovery process and only hope in the end...that you can "see the light". Good luck!

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:57:50 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:39:11 EDT

paradigmfl posted : I have to point out that what he did was basically duplicate what I did using a different proxy server.

Also regarding it being Youtube responsible we don't yet know that as it could also be Brighthouse. Both are possibile. I still suspect Brighthouse and will do further research.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:38:38 EDT

butter posted : I think at this point its clear that Bright House is not to blame. I also have done a quick search of the internet and found this link:
»help.youtube.com/group/youtube-i···48910f09

Seems this guy had the same problem and did some research on the culprit. A lot of information about Youtube's server caching and what not. He also mentions the same solution is proxy servers.

I also agree with the privacy concerns about using HideMyass. Luckily, Youtube is not a site that I would be too worried about sensitive information being transmitted. Just make sure you have a unique password and username for youtube outside of the ones you use for banking etc....

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:34:44 EDT

paradigmfl posted : No, you see the "Your ISP" represents an average for that ISP over a certain geographical area (per the YT FAQ link already given). So that might be the average of thousand of users. Of course one person might be significantly higher or lower than the average. Also keep in mind that it may count people as being from the same ISP even if it is actually different classes (i.e. my server being on a different class than most residences). It is reasonable to think that a server in a datacenter might be on a different class than a residential service.

In any event someone here just duplicated my findings a few messages back except they see it as being due to youtube geolocation rather than ISP throttling. So I believe this sort of renders the question of my specific instance moot. Others should be able to duplicate this.

To test whether it is Geolocation in theory we should be able to run tests from different ISPs located in the same area (which accurately map back to being in that respective area). If they get the goood speeds then that will be indicative of it not being due to Geolocation. If they get the same poor performance as we do on BH, then this would suggest it is due to Geolocation.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:27:16 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by butter:

I have found a temporary solution to the problem. It seems to me that Youtube uses geolocation to allocate a server . Unfortunately the server that Youtube points us to is very slow and overworked. The only method to fix this is to use a proxy based website. I use »hidemyass.com/ and then type in the Youtube URL there. The speed is much faster.

Ahh yes and you have discovered the other problem (which is again...Youtube...not BHN). Routing to each server is actually performed at the Youtube side. If they are having traffic management issues then yes this might help. I'm familiar with HMA, as a caution I think I would use them only for things where security is not an issue. These sites come and go and there has been a history of problems relating to them....use them wisely and carefully.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:24:50 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

Exactly. This is the same experience I have been writing about. I suppose Geolocation could also account for my experience since my server's proxy is located in a different state. It could also be due to ISP throttling though.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:21:53 EDT

butter posted : I have found a temporary solution to the problem. It seems to me that Youtube uses geolocation to allocate a server . Unfortunately the server that Youtube points us to is very slow and overworked. The only method to fix this is to use a proxy based website. I use »hidemyass.com/ and then type in the Youtube URL there. The speed is much faster.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:14:34 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by botld92z9:

It's not typical with most of the downloads I experience...

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:04:19 EDT

botld92z9 posted : It's not typical with most of the downloads I experience...

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:00:06 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by botld92z9:

Here is my screenshot from there.

One thing I noticed when watching the test video is that it will jump to 15xxx kbps down, then immediately tank to 2xxx, then work back up to 14-15, then back to 2 or 3...

That's not uncommon depending on network conditions across the entire route which may encompass 3, 6, 8 networks...thats a fact of life that anyone using the internet faces.

Re: BHC Throttle you tube?

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:52:43 EDT

BHNtechXpert posted :

said by paradigmfl:

I modified the images in a few areas (mainly in the proxy version):

1. The portion which displayed my youtube account name (top right)
2. A small portion where my server proxy name was identified (bottom right)
3. same as #2 except the city and state of my server provider (too easy to narrow down my server ISP with that information which I'd rather not have)

The modifications described above are the areas "blackened out". No other mods were made to the images.

Of course you should keep in mind that the server is located in a data center somewhere and is not a standard residential connection.

Regarding the "Your ISP" portion being lower, I agree that something is wrong (I suspect throttling). However, I believe when they do the "your ISP" thing it might take into account the entire residential roadrunner network.

Regarding my connection, it's decent. Usually around 7 - 9 Mbps down and 1 Mbps Up according to the brighthouse CFL speedtest. Regarding the router skewing the results keep in mind that youtube works great when proxied as described. Also I have no other connection problems with any other site, including torrents, my own flash based youtube like sites, ftp uploads, etc. While I could do a direct connection, due to the location of the desktop this will be very inconvenient. In my opinion it will not make a difference in this case (see above). I may opt to do it but for now I'm not bothering.

Regarding the strange appearance of the proxy version, I noticed that too. Also no "You" portion in the graph. Whatever the reason it is something that youtube has done. I agree with you that this test isn't the best metric. I simply used it as a start and I then provided the screenshots after you seemingly questioned whether they were truly what was reported.

Supporting the data I can provide an anecdotal observation that loading a video from the proxy did seem at least twice as fast (Not sure about eight times faster though) as loading it without the proxy (even with different new videos -- eliminating proxy or browser caching)

Again, I assure you there is no dishonesty on my part whatsoever and these screenshots have not been modified in any way other than described above. I realize such things are easily forged but you have my word about that.

I will later attempt to duplicate this with other proxies and perhaps produce a procedure by which anyone in CFL Brighthouse (or perhaps even elsewhere) may duplicate this. Of course if I/we find an alternate explanation I will reveal that. I really don't have a dog in this fight other than suspecting that it is actually bright house responsible for this.

Edit: I notice the question regarding the lack of number display and the lack of "You" appearing in the graph for the proxy results is answered by youtube's FAQ on the speedtest: »www.google.com/support/youtube/b···r=174122 (click around the different answers) So this should support my affirmation that I did no unethical alterations to the screen shots.

I'm sorry...I didn't make myself clear the second picture which is your proxy also has a Your ISP display which is the network where you traverse, not your local isp which is BHN. The test would never even see BHN on the proxy version therefore thats actually the proxy network...not BHN. With that in mind your results are 4x what your proxy network is capable of delivering if we are to trust the myspeed page.

Therefore something is off about your proxy test. Not saying you did something at all, just say it doesn't add up. Once again I think you are looking in the wrong direction. Also to be honest...knowing the networks we're talking about is highly relevant so if you aren't willing to allow un-touched screenshots then there really isn't much point in using the images at all...I understand your concerns, however the myspeed page gives little usefull information that could come back to haunt you (in fact, none really).