dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
767
share rss forum feed

Kcorj2244

join:2012-02-28
Oviedo, FL

Youtube Throttling.

Here is a speedtest to start this off:

»i.imgur.com/NA2XL5E.png

It's kinda peak hours, normally I average around 95-105 down.

Here is my youtube statistics on a random 720p video :
»i.imgur.com/629JUqk.png

Hmm that's interesting. The maximum download speed that i had on that was 1548 kbps aka 1.548 mbps. So out of my 85Mbps download speed I'm averaging the steram at 1548.

Explain how this isn't a form of brighthouse throttling. There used to be a work around to this, which blocked a range of IPs that completely got rid of this issue. That stopped work a few months ago. Before that stopped working, I averaged 24k + kbps per video.

Why is youtube so slow? Youtube seems to be the only thing that is slow for me. Twitch.tv works fine.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
»www.internetphenomena.com/2013/0 ··· quality/

Not even going down this path again. Take the time to read the countless threads here and other places on the internet, it's well covered. Happy reading...


Milkman

join:2011-03-10
Brooksville, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Bright House Dig..
·Vonage
·Bright House Net..
reply to Kcorj2244
Here is what I don't understand about posts like this.

People come here and IMMEDIATELY accuse Bright House of throttling, and without background to the issue, I can COMPLETELY understand how people would jump to that as a possible conclusion, because it is a completely valid possibility, BUT why is it the only possibility???

Do people not even consider the pipe of the provider that is SENDING the videos to you??? With the 90/10 plan, in theory you can download approximately 9 megs a second. So if I go to HP.COM and download a printer driver, and it downloads at 2 megs a second, should I immediately jump to the conclusion that Bright House is throttling HP downloads?

Like I said, for those that have no history in the long debates here, I get it, but IT ISN'T THE ONLY CONCLUSION PEOPLE...


weaseled386

join:2008-04-13
Port Orange, FL
kudos:1
reply to Kcorj2244
I can think of two options:

OPTION A:
Step 1: Read the countless, and very long, posts related to this topic. We love the search button..

OPTION B:
Step 1: Find a secondary ISP.
Step 2: Test YouTube on the primary and secondary ISP's as close together as possible.
Step 3: Get mad when you don't see a difference.
Step 4: Cancel secondary ISP.


paradigmfl

join:2005-07-16
Reviews:
·ooma
·Bright House Net..
reply to Kcorj2244
It's very hard to prove whether or not a party is throttling Youtube. For the most part the ISP and their employees are always going to deny it and try to put the blame on Youtube (for example saying the issue is the CDN servers). As you might notice some will not even entertain the discussion and will get incredibly hostile and defensive when it comes up.

For whatever reason you can often use a good proxy or VPN and totally get around the issue. Another thing to realize is that BHN doesn't actually have full control of their network. It's going over Timewarner's Roadrunner.

Final point "throttling" means different things. There is for example purposely degrading the traffic using a complex shaper like system which costs thousands but there is also the idea that the ISP purposely may not upgrade certain nodes which serve traffic to those endpoints resulting in an indirect throttling as the node cannot handle the bandwidth thrown at it during peak times.

Have you tried for example disabling DASH? There is a Firefox extension which is supposed to do that. Here it is I believe. »addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox ··· reviews/ I notice some negative recent comments. I haven't tried it myself as my Youtube seems acceptable recently.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
said by paradigmfl:

It's very hard to prove whether or not a party is throttling Youtube. For the most part the ISP and their employees are always going to deny it and try to put the blame on Youtube (for example saying the issue is the CDN servers). As you might notice some will not even entertain the discussion and will get incredibly hostile and defensive when it comes up.

For whatever reason you can often use a good proxy or VPN and totally get around the issue. Another thing to realize is that BHN doesn't actually have full control of their network. It's going over Timewarner's Roadrunner.

Final point "throttling" means different things. There is for example purposely degrading the traffic using a complex shaper like system which costs thousands but there is also the idea that the ISP purposely may not upgrade certain nodes which serve traffic to those endpoints resulting in an indirect throttling as the node cannot handle the bandwidth thrown at it during peak times.

Have you tried for example disabling DASH? There is a Firefox extension which is supposed to do that. Here it is I believe. »addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox ··· reviews/ I notice some negative recent comments. I haven't tried it myself as my Youtube seems acceptable recently.

Paraigmfl your love of this topic is so well documented

1) No USA based provider would dare throttle a specific service without full disclosure so dispense with your usual conspiracy spew Paradigmfl. As for hostility I see none in this thread. What I do see are people reminding the OP to take the time to read the plethora of existing posts on the subject instead of making accusations without supporting facts.

2) Your proxy thing has been explained in the greatest of detail again in the plethora of threads already covering the topic...there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. Part two of your answer isn't worth arguing with you about other than to say....incorrect.

3) Throttling means only one thing this day and age....spare us the fuzzy logic

4) Woohoo your final answer was something constructive....thank you!
--
~All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer ~



telijah
Premium
join:2013-04-22
Brandon, FL
Reviews:
·Bright House Net..
reply to paradigmfl
said by paradigmfl:

Words...

As you mentioned in the end of this post, ever since I installed the Chrome extension for YouTube Center and disabled DASH, I have had zero problems playing videos from YouTube.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to Kcorj2244
said by Kcorj2244:

Explain how this isn't a form of brighthouse throttling.

I am not a BHN customer, but I have seen an interesting issue with YouTube. If a viewer connects with an IPv6 enabled connection, YouTube will deliver the content from Google's IPv6 network.

When I view YT clips on my ISP (Sonic.net) IPv6 network (6rd), YT appears to be throttled.

When I view YT clips on my Hurricane Electric IPv6 network (6in4), YT does not appear to be throttled.

The difference seems to be transit: HE is directly connected with Google while Sonic.net goes through Cogent transit to Google. Different routes; and Cogent may be congested.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
said by NormanS:

said by Kcorj2244:

Explain how this isn't a form of brighthouse throttling.

I am not a BHN customer, but I have seen an interesting issue with YouTube. If a viewer connects with an IPv6 enabled connection, YouTube will deliver the content from Google's IPv6 network.

When I view YT clips on my ISP (Sonic.net) IPv6 network (6rd), YT appears to be throttled.

When I view YT clips on my Hurricane Electric IPv6 network (6in4), YT does not appear to be throttled.

The difference seems to be transit: HE is directly connected with Google while Sonic.net goes through Cogent transit to Google. Different routes; and Cogent may be congested.

Yup.... I too have an IPv6 tunnel from HE.
--
~All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer ~

Expand your moderator at work


neonhomer
KK4BFN
Premium
join:2004-01-27
Edgewater, FL
Reviews:
·Bright House Net..
reply to Kcorj2244

Re: Youtube Throttling.

I don't think it really matters who your ISP is... YT has problems in general.

I can view YT videos fine from my home connection (BHN 30/2), and from my work connection (Mayo Clinic, 5/5). Then, tomorrow... BHN will work, but Mayo won't. Then later, it's the opposite...


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
said by neonhomer:

I don't think it really matters who your ISP is... YT has problems in general.

I can view YT videos fine from my home connection (BHN 30/2), and from my work connection (Mayo Clinic, 5/5). Then, tomorrow... BHN will work, but Mayo won't. Then later, it's the opposite...

So how did it work during the blood moon?
--
~All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer ~



neonhomer
KK4BFN
Premium
join:2004-01-27
Edgewater, FL
With the sacrifice of a chicken? About the same.....

The KFC, I mean chicken sacrifice was good, though...


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
said by neonhomer:

With the sacrifice of a chicken? About the same.....

The KFC, I mean chicken sacrifice was good, though...

LOL!!!!

meikgeik

join:2014-04-24
reply to BHNtechXpert
said by BHNtechXpert:

1) No USA based provider would dare throttle a specific service without full disclosure so dispense with your usual conspiracy spew Paradigmfl. As for hostility I see none in this thread. What I do see are people reminding the OP to take the time to read the plethora of existing posts on the subject instead of making accusations without supporting facts.

I joined just to respond to this. Comcast was caught doing just this in Feb. »www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ··· logyNews

They did not disclose it before they started throttling, and if customers inquired about the issue, it was denied over and over again.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
said by meikgeik:

said by BHNtechXpert:

1) No USA based provider would dare throttle a specific service without full disclosure so dispense with your usual conspiracy spew Paradigmfl. As for hostility I see none in this thread. What I do see are people reminding the OP to take the time to read the plethora of existing posts on the subject instead of making accusations without supporting facts.

I joined just to respond to this. Comcast was caught doing just this in Feb. »www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ··· logyNews

They did not disclose it before they started throttling, and if customers inquired about the issue, it was denied over and over again.

LOL they were not throttling anything. Go back and re-read the article it had nothing to do with throttling. Comcast hasn't done anything like that in YEARS nor would they dare after their ONLY dive into the toxic pool of throttling as you call it and that didn't go so well for them.
--
~All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer ~



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to meikgeik
said by meikgeik:

They did not disclose it before they started throttling, and if customers inquired about the issue, it was denied over and over again.

Nobody ever proved that Comcast was throttling Netflix.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
reply to Kcorj2244
It's because they were not throttling Netflix...

vasta

join:2003-04-07
Orlando, FL
reply to Kcorj2244
I've had decent results since switching to the HTML5 player
»www.youtube.com/html5

HD can still be rough during prime time but I don't need any addons to enable buffering while the video is paused and whatnot

ShadowFoxBiH

join:2013-04-27
Port Richey, FL

2 edits
reply to Kcorj2244
Ok so I haven't been around for a while, not saying I haven't been reading, but I will finally beat this horse dead. I have worked with 3 independent ISP setting up and routing traffic between locations for different services so let's just say networking is a specialty of mine. The problem with Youtube is a well known issue and the majority of the issue stems from peering, some providers have a direct link with Google and others do not hence why the slow downs occur. Cogent, Level 3, and the other CDN's out there are not truly equipped to handle the traffic that is being sent which causes ping times to go from standard 30 ms to above 60 ms which in normal speak means the traffic is taking longer to get from one place to another, it's not a Bright House issue nor is it a Youtube issue the third party is partly to blame here. Now here comes the fun part Google has the option of peering with ISP's directly but they don't simply due to the fact that hey why should they? Google gains nothing by peering with ISP's directly other than speed which is why if you have their Fiber service Youtube does not seem to be throttled at all; the other side of the coin peering directly with ISP's would overload the network as well so it's a double edged sword. Google's own network also has problems handling the traffic hence why different edge switches can increase of decrease your speeds, now you ask why well the edge switch will route the traffic differently depending on the number of requests, something called load balancing for those of you who are networking geeks so the more traffic hitting that switch the slower your connection will seem. Another big piece of the puzzle is all those magical switches in between you and the final destination that have forwarding tables setup or dynamic routing a big piece of the traffic goes through this and is routed to closest available switch, if there is a switch down and there is nowhere else left to route traffic guess what happens? I am getting a bit long with this but my point is it's easy to blame BH for all this and just assume all is kosher when in fact there are many points of congestion once the traffic leaves BH that BH can't do anything about so just saying oh BH is throttling really irks me since there are many other factors in play, one of them being the equipment in your home, check to see how much traffic your own router is handling and see what it is doing before you go and blame someone else.


Milkman

join:2011-03-10
Brooksville, FL
kudos:1
My eyes hurt from the wall of text, but what I read is well written, but be prepared for the conspiracy theorists to come out and tell you why you are wrong.


weaseled386

join:2008-04-13
Port Orange, FL
kudos:1
said by Milkman:

My eyes hurt from the wall of text, but what I read is well written, but be prepared for the conspiracy theorists to come out and tell you why you are wrong.

lol, that was my exact same thoughts before going to sleep earlier. Picking out bits & pieces, it seems to be the same that has already been discussed 836 times.

ShadowFoxBiH

join:2013-04-27
Port Richey, FL
Milkman and Weaseled, I agree with you guys I didn't want to write that wall of text but someone had to beat that horse dead. Essentially speaking there are too many factors out to blame only BH and say it's their fault and it kind of bugs me since I know people on Comcast and Verizon who have the same problems, it doesn't take a network admin to figure out that the way traffic is routed make a big difference in speed.

evoxllx

join:2007-06-07
Winter Park, FL

1 edit
reply to Kcorj2244
I know for a fact that BHN and TWC run a decent number of their peering/transit points near capacity for long periods of time.

BHN also chose to route Google traffic over XO for some odd reason. I thought it was well known at this point that XO sucks very badly.

Edit: I should also note that BHN chooses to use XO for a decent number of different routes, not just for Google. It's also quite clear that at certain times of the day, their XO peering/transit is near or at capacity.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

2 recommendations

said by evoxllx:

I know for a fact that BHN and TWC run a decent number of their peering/transit points near capacity for long periods of time.

Good. Facts can be demonstrated, so show us the proof.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


paradigmfl

join:2005-07-16
Reviews:
·ooma
·Bright House Net..
reply to Milkman
said by Milkman:

My eyes hurt from the wall of text, but what I read is well written, but be prepared for the conspiracy theorists to come out and tell you why you are wrong.

I can't say for sure what is going on (and my YT is fine atm) but I will say that I find it funny how if someone suggests the ISP (BHN or TW in this case) might be throttling or otherwise have capacity issues then they are a "conspiracy theorist" or a "troll". However if someone accuses Youtube of the same thing then there is no such name calling and it is generally accepted by certain people here as if it were fact. It's an interesting double standard. Evidence should be provided either way, not just when it comes to one side.


BHNtechXpert
BHN Staff
Premium,VIP
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL
kudos:161
said by paradigmfl:

said by Milkman:

My eyes hurt from the wall of text, but what I read is well written, but be prepared for the conspiracy theorists to come out and tell you why you are wrong.

I can't say for sure what is going on (and my YT is fine atm) but I will say that I find it funny how if someone suggests the ISP (BHN or TW in this case) might be throttling or otherwise have capacity issues then they are a "conspiracy theorist" or a "troll". However if someone accuses Youtube of the same thing then there is no such name calling and it is generally accepted by certain people here as if it were fact. It's an interesting double standard. Evidence should be provided either way, not just when it comes to one side.

You obviously didn't read the post because that is not what he said. If you need someone to explain it just ask and I'm sure Shadowfox will try to explain it in laymans terms.
--
~All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer ~



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to paradigmfl
Neither YouTube, nor any ISP owns sole blame. My ISP, Sonic.net, is a flea among giants; fewer than 75,000 subscribers, mostly in the S.F, Bay Area of California. Netflix streams fine because they are an Open Connect partner. They are not a content provider. Yet YouTube flakes out; buffering and balking at 720p! Yet the same video plays flawless on a different connection; and, no, not a VPN. No need to hide my traffic from my ISP.

Here is the difference in trace routes:

Sonic.net "Fusion":
Tracing route to nuq05s02-in-x08.1e100.net [2607:f8b0:4005:802::1008]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  2602:24a:de40:7d90::1
  2    26 ms    25 ms    26 ms  cust-gw.ipv6.sonic.net [2602:24b:8179:10::1]
  3    26 ms    26 ms    25 ms  0.ge-5-1-1.gw.200p-sf.sonic.net [2001:5a8:5:d::1]
  4    26 ms    25 ms    25 ms  0.as0.gw2.200p-sf.sonic.net [2001:5a8:5:8::2]
  5    26 ms    26 ms    27 ms  0.xe-6-0-0.gw.pao1.sonic.net [2001:5a8:5:6::1]
  6    28 ms    27 ms    28 ms  2001:550:2:3a::9:1                    (Cogent)
  7    28 ms    27 ms    27 ms  2001:550:4::48                        (Cogent)
  8    28 ms    29 ms    27 ms  2001:550:2:1f::46:2                   (Cogent)
  9    27 ms    50 ms    27 ms  2001:4860::1:0:7ea                    (Google)
 10    28 ms    28 ms    28 ms  2001:4860:0:1::693                    (Google)
 11    27 ms    27 ms    27 ms  nuq05s02-in-x08.1e100.net [2607:f8b0:4005:802::1008]
 
Trace complete.
 

Hurricane Electric:
Tracing route to nuq05s01-in-x00.1e100.net [2607:f8b0:4005:800::1000]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  2001:470:82cb::1
  2   575 ms    36 ms    33 ms  NKonaya-1.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [2001:470:1f04:448::1]
  3    27 ms    37 ms    28 ms  ge5-19.core1.fmt2.he.net [2001:470:0:45::1]
  4    27 ms    26 ms    27 ms  10ge1-1.core1.sjc2.he.net [2001:470:0:31::2]
  5    27 ms    28 ms    27 ms  2001:4860:1:1:0:1b1b:0:9              (Google)
  6    27 ms    44 ms    28 ms  2001:4860::1:0:7ea                    (Google)
  7    27 ms    27 ms    27 ms  2001:4860:0:1::691                    (Google)
  8    27 ms    27 ms    26 ms  nuq05s01-in-x00.1e100.net [2607:f8b0:4005:800::1000]
 
Trace complete.
 

Hop 1 in each case is my router. Pay attention to the routing!!!

Sonic.net to Google (Youtube; buffers @ 720p) goes through Cogent (notorious for running ports "hot").
Hurricane Electric to Google (Youtube; does not buffer @ 1080p) goes direct.

There are three players in the first; any one of which, or all three in some combination, could be the problem. That is the gist of ShadowFoxBiH See Profile's post.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

ShadowFoxBiH

join:2013-04-27
Port Richey, FL
reply to evoxllx
said by evoxllx:

I know for a fact that BHN and TWC run a decent number of their peering/transit points near capacity for long periods of time.

BHN also chose to route Google traffic over XO for some odd reason. I thought it was well known at this point that XO sucks very badly.

Edit: I should also note that BHN chooses to use XO for a decent number of different routes, not just for Google. It's also quite clear that at certain times of the day, their XO peering/transit is near or at capacity.

Please provide proof of this as this is absolutely asinine, every ISP out there uses dynamic load balancing and multipath routing to prevent this from occurring, there is no single peering point as packets will get split to multiple paths to prevent a single link from getting saturated.