Cable Industry Blames Google, Netflix for Bottlenecks

Hey dummy, if Netflix and other content companies never existed I would be doing jus fine with 1.5Mbps - even ISDN 128K is good enough for Geocities!

"Oh no, the big bad Netflix demands so much more bandwidth than text sites, my customers are now wanting faster speeds for which we can only charge so much more which doesn't look good to stockholders!"

You should be sharing your profits with Netflix and the rest, if it wasn't for them, 90% of us wouldn't need 25Mbps and up connections!

It's a viscous circle. And if Netflix did not exsist, would there of been any copycats like Blockbuster and Amazon*? And besides the streaming aspect people would have to get off their duff and then subsequently remember to return the movies on time at the local mom and pop video store/gas station. Oh the insanity of it all.:D LOL

*High speed Digital service only.

And you don't now. The streams from netflix "and the rest" only require a few Mbps each, so a 12/2 or better account will let you stream multiple movies/shows at once, certainly all netflix will allow you to stream at one time.

Then you come to a site that's bloated with Flash, streaming video, and Java.

Much to that sites disadvantage, if people were truely bandwidth constrained, as they might CHOOSE to avoid it.

Of course there still are lots of people on DSL or wireless that would be happier with lower bandwidth designs.

When I was on dialup, I avoided flash heavy sites. I still curse every time I stumble across a website designed by an idiot who thinks that Flash and Javascript are a complete replacment for HTML.

It's like CNN believes even a bad cell phone video is better than a well written text story (not that they have people with writing skills anymore)

To be fair, JavaScript is just fine, as long as it isn't abused (DSLReports actually makes decent use of JS IMO). Flash on the other hand...with all that HTML5 can now do, it just needs to die.

Javascript is heavily over-used.

Why does a site need JS to display the large version of an image? Or to switch the second page of a story?

I wish I had an URL handy, but I've seen sites where the page is literally completely blank unless you have JS turned on.

Apparently their developers haven't heard of gracefully degrading then.

You should build a site to work without JS, then enhance functionality with the aid of JS.

I've seen my share of blanks pages, but there even more that punish the user for not running any and all javascript. Can't pay DMV fees online (they even redirect to kill workarounds). Can't see the price of anything at newegg. Don't get see the tracking history at fedex (but it's all there in a javascript array called detailObjectInfo or somthing). Can't see gas prices at gasbuddy (retrieved using AJAX). Can't transfer money at bofa (or pay bills either, officially). Can't do anything at schwab. BUT, the Facepalm of Disbelief goes to an incarnation of the costco site that used for all their browse links <a href="#" onclick="javascript:something.location=...">Whatever</a>.

Of course, a little bit of javascript is like being a little bit pregnant. Either run it all or run none. No picking just the part that does the one thing you want done.

Java is best at delivering viruses and malware.

Which will still load just fine with a 1.5 to 3.0mbit/s connection. A 25 MB website will load in about a minute at 3.0mbit/s. Of course 25 MB is grossly inflated even for a bloated Flash site and one could always vote with their wallet and avoid such sites.

I tether via my 3G phone for web browsing on the road and typically get speeds ranging from 600kbit/s to 2mbit/s. I've yet to come across a webpage that isn't tolerable at these speeds. Most load almost as fast as they do at home on my wireline connection.

The amount of stuff I do my 5mbit/s DSL connection could barely keep up.

I do need more upstream, though. The 896kbit/s isn't faring too well and is almost always saturated (VPN connections to family members).

..which is why we are getting our 30mbit/s DS (5mbit/s US) cable modem service back and probably keep the DSL as a failover (stuck in a contract with CL).

Side note: curious as to when CV/OptimumWest is going to rev their tiers again. I know that 30/5 is a heck of a lot better than Bresnan offered prior to the CV purchase...and better than probably every single CL subscriber can get in the state...but I can do 30/5 over a well-managed wireless last mile. Heck, I can exceed it. And having wireless that exceeds cable bandwidth is a sign that cable isn't trying hard enough.

So if 2 HD streams are being watched, that leaves about 1Mbps of free bandwidth. Better hope little billy doesn't start downloading something off xbox 360, steam, or watch a youtube video!

so that's a case were a family is using more, so they should move to a higher tier.
Comcast doesn't care if it's one individual doing multiple streams or a family with twelve kids, you should pay for what you use.

if the basic tier doesn't cover your usage, upgrade away or do without

What if a higher tier is not available?

Then learn to deal with what you have. or make it profitable in the long term to attract new players.
and yes I know that can be a long term and expensive deal in some areas particularly in low density areas.
sorry thats real life.

Yes Simba7. If you have a large family you should run your own last mile fiber to your local cable company's plant so you can get everyone on and let them charge you what they want and cap it how they see fit.

How did you not know you are solely responsible for building out their network for you needs? I am sure you local government has a website that provides you with very easy easement and permits in just 3 clicks.

EDIT: Ok.. Let's re-direct that comment since I completely mis-understood Skippy25 's reply.

As for tshirt 's comment, that's rather arrogant. So, what you're saying is we should suffer because we don't live in a large city? That's crap, and most of us know it. We want to live in small towns and cities because we don't like the crouding, the traffic jams, the crappy air quality, and (sometimes) the people in general.

Sorry, my comment was in complete sarcasm to the other idiot that replied to you.

Yes, tshirt is pretty retarded.

Not at all
But you do have to recognize the great cost of reaching your location because of it's distance and because the low density means less people to share the cost with, which applies wheather it's gas to deliver something for the cities or miles of broadband plant to reach you.
BTW I live in a rural (but unfortunately rapidly becoming less so )area, for the same reasons . When I moved here in the late eighties, I could reach 2 BBS's at 300 baud without being a toll call.
after years of trying to get ISDN I tried DSL (the day after it was installed the ISDN guys started calling back OVER and OVER)
I also had satellite (Direct PC) for a few years and FINALLY comcast bought out At&t cable, rebuilt the plant from scratch, and brought real Broadband to my home.
among the frustrations was fios which reached the local CO less than 1/2 north, and services an area 1/2 mile south before discontinuing the roll out, and Clearwire a local startup that still can't reach my house, but has sent promo letters, flyers, brosures and phone calls, weekly since day one.

Anyway I understand the impatience and the fear of what the bill will be once it reaches you.
And while you'll probably still see SOME cost shifting new USF/connect america, it will never pay the full cost at city rates, and will never be fully paid by Gov't.
meaning in order to attract the investment by private industry, or to form a co-op/muni(can a MUNI be rural?) you will have to pay more, probably alot more to get it.
Sorry it you don't like it, but thats the truth.
If you want fantasy, stick with skippy

Yeah, but you would be paying the same as you are now for 128kbps. All that profit was diverted into upgrading the network to support parasites like Netflix!

Parasites. LOL

A article that doesn't put in a snipe, a bash a jab a this. Actually what I would like to know is there a provider out that fits DSLr's vision of a "Good boy" that's their poster child for what every ISP should be?

Ofcourse at the same time.. comparing their ambitions in the ISP world saying clearly they can't be a source of problems in content delivery is a stretchy conclusion.

Likewise Netflix and several other companies all provide local caches of their content so "testing" would be increasingly pointless or difficult. Am I saying the providers are off scott clean no they are not. I think this is warping to a degree (on mso/ncta side) where customers *DO* complain that they upgraded their internet package and don't notice a difference. Lets face it 10mbps reading various web-pages isn't going to look any faster than 5mbps on web pages. And certain not incredibly slower than 20+meg connection.

I have to say, I always get a good streaming experience with Netflix. But Google could certainly do a better job delivering content and not just YouTube. Their products like Gmail, Reader, News often have significant slowdowns on the server end.

You think it's server delivery? Or bad design, google used to be big into keeping everything simple (before igoogle) but overtime their interfaces are developing more and more into a portal overly bloated page experience.

(This actually is a question not saying your right or wrong).

Harddrives in an average user's machine can't even keep up with "caching data" that a 1gb connection can provide. Hell, most have a hard time with just 100MB.

Like Google Talk being down right now? I guess since it's "free" no one cares.

Only ever have problems on Google sites when I am a guest of scrimpers who are satisfied with their "El Cheapo" 768kb/s connections. Even my old AT&T 1.5Mb/s (nominal; 1.1Mb/s delivered) connection kept up with YouTube. My old AT&T 3.0Mb/s (nominal; 2.5Mb/s delivered) was quite comfortable with YouTube. The Sonic.net "Fusion" connection, at 4.9Mb/s was "smokin'".

Never have I had a server side slowdown with Google.

Your issue sounds more like a peering or geographical issue, ie., the nearest carrier exchange/hotel (where Google co-locates) is quite some distance away and/or your ISP doesn't have sufficient capacity to/from it.

I've always had 9ms latency to Google, at TorIX.

This blog post is bullshit anyways, everyone knows that the last-mile will always be the bottleneck, regardless of what DOCSIS version or how many nodes they split. Same with xDSL.

DSLReports tends to like Sonic.net, Google Fiber, various muni fiber providers (Greenlight, LUSFiber, Fibrant, EPB).

Also, on principle, I agree with you about higher 'net speeds. Give me a squeaky-clean, low-latency 1.5 Mbps connection (preferably symmetric) and I'm happy until I try to watch an HD video. At which point, upgrade that connection to 5 Mbps symmetric and keep the clean-ness and I'm happy 99% of the time.

The issue is that various links in the chain are falling down on their ability to deliver a clean, consistent connection. Pretty sure Comcast's peering connectivity with Google is strained at times, because my 50M connection can't stream SD YouTube every once in awhile, where five years ago I could stream it just fine with a 384/128 wireless connection taking a slice out of an AT&T T3.

I pay for it and I'll use it as I see fit.

If cable companies can't meet their responsibilities, then stop taking the consumers' money.

Are a few of these members of the NCTA, also Content creaters/holders?

shouldn't they be making more stuff as well..

Netflix blames content providers for not "sharing" at a price they want to pay.

Netflix blames the post office for charging too much for delivery

Netflix blames ISP's for wanting to be paid for deliver of their product

Netflix blames blames the Olympics for disrupting summer viewing patterns and slowing subscriber growth

Who does Netflix blame next?

bahahaha their kiddin!!, the cable companies are just tryin to blame some one else, google and Netflix is both hooked up to fiber.. cable needs to get off their a** and stop whinein... its sad for a great country like ours will be the last to see fiber due to our companies saying we don't need something.. how can they say that? they have no clue what people need? upload is in demand NOW with cloud and everything in the future some of it is already being implemented.. 1.0mbps upload with suddenlink is horrible..., they could push more but o wait.. still on docsis 2.0 wth

If there are no content providers there is no internet. Imagine if Netflix, Google, Yahoo and all the other similar sites shut down. What would be left on the internet worth paying for? No one will need anything more than they did in the old days of the BBS - a dial up connection.

Imagine..just for a second ...if the internet was ever ruled a public utility and were prevented from making outrageous profits as well as having to prove the need for limiting bandwidth or price increases. Imagine if they were not allowed to have stockholders who's only motive is to get as rich as possible.

Imagine how the internet would operate then.

Why is it some of the largest companies in the country can't seem to keep up with the rest of the world when it comes to providing intenet service? Why do these multi billion dollar companies feel the need to double dip their customers, both the content provider who is -already paying- for its connection and bandwidth, and the individual end user customer, who is also -already paying- for his/her connection and bandwidth? Oh right, because they're becoming too big to response to the demands of their customers on both ends of the pipeline and the people running these companies can't seem to actually take responsibility for the failings of their own organizations and need to blame someone else. Oh, and it seems like they're just plain greedy

after 10 years and having sites like facebook online, i could do without the internet! 56k is all I need to check email and apply for job appz