dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
10

Milkman0
join:2011-03-10
Brooksville, FL

Milkman0 to ShadowFoxBiH

Member

to ShadowFoxBiH

Re: Youtube Throttling.

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
Edgewater, FL

weaseled386

Member

said by Milkman0:

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

ShadowFoxBiH

Member

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.

paradigmfl
join:2005-07-16

paradigmfl to Milkman0

Member

to Milkman0
said by Milkman0:

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
The One & Only
Premium Member
join:2006-02-16
Saint Petersburg, FL

BHNtechXpert

Premium Member

said by paradigmfl:

said by Milkman0:

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.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to paradigmfl

MVM

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.