dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1265

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS

Who Has The Best ISP For Video Quality and Performance? Google Knows

And now they will tell you.

»www.cbc.ca/news/technolo ··· ?cmp=rss
quote:
Google Inc. has launched a video performance-grading system, describing the feature as a tool to give users a clearer picture of how their internet service providers (ISPs) are serving them based on YouTube playback.

The new Video Quality Report service is first available to Canadians, but will eventually expand to other international markets, YouTube director of product management Shiva Rajaraman told the Financial Post.

Consumers who run the test would have the video report as an easy-to-understand barometer for measuring whether their connection speeds are up to snuff. A better ranking would be achieved by a service provider that can better handle playing high-definition (HD) YouTube videos.

For your own report, click here.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

3 edits

Teddy Boom

Premium Member

So Google is in the pocket of Rogers and Bell?
As for why [Google] selected Canada [...], Rajaraman told the Financial Post [...] "We wanted to start with a market where clearly people are doing it well, and we wanted to lead with the best,”.
Also, Google fibre isn't coming here any time soon

That aside, this is a much better rating system than the garbage PC Mag listing that Rogers has been quoting. It is still flawed though. The fact that an ISP caters to low speed customers, or customers who tend to max out their connection should not penalize the ISP in a rating.

My first thought was that we'd be able to see the effect of peak hour congestion, but the well known issue at CIK Telecom doesn't show up. ?!?

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm

Anon

said by Teddy Boom:

So Google is in the pocket of Rogers and Bell?

Well I find that comment a little out there. But anyhow, not everything is ISP related. Much has to do with google itself.
»www.internetphenomena.co ··· quality/

One should also be aware that many providers here has had documented issues in these very forums in regards to googles low quality and people blaming the ISP. Anyone recall all the people complaining? This happened with Rogers, TSI, Ebox and Bell (I didn't notice anything with Telus, Shaw or Videotron).

Maybe Canadian ISP's should be rating googles quality?

Nor am I exactly a fan of ISP's plugging in google hardware. Hardware that they really have no control over at all. I wouldn't trust google hardware.

And for all we know, maybe google penalizes ISP's if said ISP doesn't blindly install google hardware.

Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium Member
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON

Teddy Boom

Premium Member

said by hmm :

Well I find that comment a little out there.

Well.. said in haste maybe.. but Google did say "Canada does it best". Do you think Canada does it best? It is a ridiculous assertion, so my conclusion is there must be some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement with Canada's incumbents.

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

1 edit

jmck to hmm

Member

to hmm
said by hmm :

Nor am I exactly a fan of ISP's plugging in google hardware. Hardware that they really have no control over at all. I wouldn't trust google hardware.

And for all we know, maybe google penalizes ISP's if said ISP doesn't blindly install google hardware.

i'm sorry i'm not a Google fan by any means, but they're quite a bit more trustworthy that any big Telecom in the US or Canada.

furthermore ya there is a penalty if you don't peer with Google or have a cache server, it's called extra latency or saturated pipes at peak.

Rogers and Bell customers have faster packages, that's really the bottom line. they also don't run into TPIA link capacity issues.

I'm not quite sure why you'd think Rogers was in Google's pocket over this.
jmck

jmck to Teddy Boom

Member

to Teddy Boom
said by Teddy Boom:

said by hmm :

Well I find that comment a little out there.

Well.. said in haste maybe.. but Google did say "Canada does it best". Do you think Canada does it best? It is a ridiculous assertion, so my conclusion is there must be some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement with Canada's incumbents.

have you lived in another country?

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm to jmck

Anon

to jmck
Well... exactly. All this is is a google commercial marketing gimmick. If you don't blindly install google hardware, that you have zero control over, of course you, and the ISP, are penalized. And google will publicly give an ISP a lower rating as if it actually means something.

It's a false quality rating meant to stir kids into choosing an ISP with a "google certified HD rating" that really means nothing except that maybe said ISP blindly put google hardware in place.

And no, I would definitely not say "American google is more trustworthy than any Big Telecom in Canada". Not even close.
hmm

hmm

Anon

CBC:
»www.cbc.ca/news/technolo ··· .2506484
"YouTube HD Verified" grade if their ISP in that region was able to load 90 per cent of the YouTube videos they see in HD and also be able to stream those videos smoothly.

If an ISP has google hardware already and gets a crappy score, it sure as hell looks bad for an ISP.

From what I understand, and from some other topics in other forums here, it would appear that certain isp's here have trouble streaming. If anything this may be showing some capacity issues with certain ISP's who have google gear installed. In otherwords, some ISP's are either cheaping their customers out, or have issues.

Other than that I find it meaningless and a giant commercial for that American data-slurping-octopus.

TSI Marc
Premium Member
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON

TSI Marc

Premium Member

Pretty much everybody uses google cache servers either installed in their own racks or through Torix.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm

Anon

Yeah was reading that on googles site about certain exchange points.

pstewart
Premium Member
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON

pstewart to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
The reporting in my opinion is kind of flawed and too broad per ISP. I know of 8 or 9 ISP's so far that have all rated as SD quality on this Video Quality Report.

None of these specific ISP's are peered with Google at TorIX and none of them have GGC boxes. But that's not the issue on why they are getting rated as "SD". These ISP's serve a significant number of low speed customers still, and those customers are in regions where there simply isn't any other options. So because of the way Google sees them as an ISP, folks begin to think that watching Youtube on a FTTH connection (in a larger area that the same ISP serves) will be a horrible experience which simply isn't true.

Google seems to have jumped to the conclusion that everyone has 10 Mb/s connections in their homes...

martyb1
join:2013-05-18
Wemindji, QC

martyb1

Member

said by pstewart:

The reporting in my opinion is kind of flawed and too broad per ISP. I know of 8 or 9 ISP's so far that have all rated as SD quality on this Video Quality Report.

None of these specific ISP's are peered with Google at TorIX and none of them have GGC boxes. But that's not the issue on why they are getting rated as "SD". These ISP's serve a significant number of low speed customers still, and those customers are in regions where there simply isn't any other options. So because of the way Google sees them as an ISP, folks begin to think that watching Youtube on a FTTH connection (in a larger area that the same ISP serves) will be a horrible experience which simply isn't true.

Google seems to have jumped to the conclusion that everyone has 10 Mb/s connections in their homes...

I am seeing the same thing. We serve large and small markets out of the same LNS pool, and dynamic ranges are geolocated all over the place (by some mecanism I don't comprehend, clearly) so depending on what netblock my connection is dynamically assigned, I sometimes am HD verified and sometimes not. And more often than not, I am geolocated to a region other than the one I am in.

I think that the flaw for smaller ISPs covering via wholesale a large area is that the same /24 can be used in different regions where available speeds will vary.

hmm
@videotron.ca

hmm to pstewart

Anon

to pstewart
said by pstewart:

None of these specific ISP's are peered with Google at TorIX and none of them have GGC boxes.

That was kind of the point I was making above.

Am I the only one that see's this as google trying to deceive ordinary Canadians and muscle Canadian ISP's?

Did they chose Canada first because people here hype easily? And maybe the mouths at open media, and Geist, are all for this data-slurping American octopus?

The Quality metric has a certain place. It shows TSI (just as an example, mr apesh*t) does indeed have some time of day issues it would clearly appear. But that is all I see from this.

In a sense I like what they are showing, but I have no love for what they are trying to do with it.

pstewart
Premium Member
join:2005-10-12
Peterborough, ON

pstewart

Premium Member

said by hmm :

said by pstewart:

None of these specific ISP's are peered with Google at TorIX and none of them have GGC boxes.

That was kind of the point I was making above.

Am I the only one that see's this as google trying to deceive ordinary Canadians and muscle Canadian ISP's?

No, not in my opinion.... I was basically saying that Google is using a metric with a "one size fits all" approach, which isn't close to reality for a lot of ISP's.
Riplin
join:2002-05-13
canada

Riplin to DKS

Member

to DKS
BS test, I ran the test from a 200mbit line and it indicated SD. garbage
DSL_Ricer
Premium Member
join:2007-07-22

DSL_Ricer

Premium Member

It's not a test. It's a report. The results are based on stats collected for a region, from Youtube, over the passed month.
DSL_Ricer

DSL_Ricer to pstewart

Premium Member

to pstewart
said by pstewart:

I was basically saying that Google is using a metric with a "one size fits all" approach, which isn't close to reality for a lot of ISP's.

I see Bell being listed as both Bell non-fibe and Bell fibe. Is there no way for an independent to their users split into different buckets by speed? (or would that also be impossible for cable)
lawrenson
join:2012-02-22

lawrenson

Member

said by DSL_Ricer:

I see Bell being listed as both Bell non-fibe and Bell fibe. Is there no way for an independent to their users split into different buckets by speed? (or would that also be impossible for cable)

I'm curious how they determine that as well. I suppose it's possible Google is using previous information provided by ISPs (for GGC for example) about ASNs or prefixes etc. Bell might then separate their users by using different IP ranges for Fibe and non-Fibe customers.

If that's the case, it would be possible for an IISP to do for DSL but not cable due to the way IP addressing currently works.

andyb
Premium Member
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario

andyb to DKS

Premium Member

to DKS
I checked it out.HD listed Rogers,Distributel,Start andTeksavvy for my area.Bell fibe got the SD award along with comwave and some others I dont remember

Zoo
@distributel.net

Zoo

Anon

Same here
Distributel,Rogers,teksavy got the HD award.
Bell, start etc got SD

Don't see any conspiracy.