dslreports logo
site
   
spc
Related:
story category
Google to Name and Shame ISPs With YouTube Buffering Issues
by Karl Bode 10:16AM Tuesday May 13 2014
Back in January you might recall that Google started heavily promoting a video quality report for YouTube that tracked YouTube streaming performance by ISP. The effort appears to be an attempt to educate users on the numerous steps between YouTube servers and your PC, and, like Netflix's ISP streaming rankings, highlight how some ISPs perform worse than others.

Click for full size
Ultimately, Google says they'll tag ISPs with good YouTube streaming performance as "HD verified." The actual reporting seems minimal to non-existent so far: clicking on "your results" still does nothing for U.S. users as the reports only work in Canada at the moment.

The effort is pretty clearly, like Netflix's effort, an attempt to "name and shame" certain ISPs that provide sub-standard streaming performance, either incidentally or intentionally as part of the new ISP effort to kill settlement-free peering and create a new revenue stream.

Interestingly, Google seems to sell Ars Technica on the idea that this naming and shaming really helps ISPs by convincing customers to buy faster and more expensive broadband service for better streaming speeds:
quote:
“It has effectively drawn attention to ISPs that are able to, at least on one of their products, offer an HD experience,” Keith McCallion, technical program manager of peering and content delivery for Google, said in a presentation at the Content Delivery Summit in New York. “What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video."
Except as many of our users on ultra-fast connections (like FiOS) will attest, speed doesn't necessarily mean you'll avoid the YouTube buffering monster. That's because many YouTube slowdowns are courtesy of somebody along the chain either not upgrading necessary infrastructure -- or as in the case of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon vs. Netflix -- intentionally letting peering points congest to make an extra buck.

Google says their YouTube reports should launch in other countries and the United States soon, and you can be pretty sure that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon won't find the results particularly helpful.


57 comments .. click to read

Recommended comments




Anoo

@68.62.236.x

3 recommendations

Shouldn't the ISP be the one paying, not the middle tier 1 providers?

I don't get all the people who defend ISP's saying Netflix and Google etc. should be paying.

Settlement peering would never truly work as a 1:1 and that was just an excuse used to get it going.

Why should Comcast get to charge Netflix to provide data that Comcast PAYING subscribers are REQUESTING?

Comcast is the one who does NOT have global access, this is why tier 1 providers exists. They will always be heavy one way because an ISP that is primarily residential has NOTHING to offer the rest of the world.

Yes Comcast offers peering and business services etc, but how many major companies get Comcast and want to use them to serve content globally? Umm, none, because Comcast can't provide that service.

Thus you get a company like Level 3. They are a GLOBAL company. No body is getting a free ride.

Netflix paid Level 3 for internet, just like you pay Comcast for internet. All Comcast and other ISP's are trying to do is FORCE large companies to peer directly with them.

The problem with that? Everyone doing it means Netflix, google etc, will need to have 10 different ISP to server traffic and pay all 10. The whole point of tier 1 providers are that they provide connection to everyone, that's why they exist and you pay them.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. Google and Netflix are not putting the load/traffic on Comcast or Verizon or anyone, the customers of those ISP's are. So to me. Comcast should have to pay Level 3 and every other peer they peer with because Comcast provides no value to them, they in fact provide the value to the ISP by allowing the ISP customer access to the Internet. Comcast connection is an Intranet, it's not Internet unless I can get to the world.

Regardless, companies like Comcast are putting Caps in areas and claim it's for bandwidth management, but don't count they own IPTV or VoIP service. Why? They say because it's on net. Well how come my traffic from my house to say a business I have with Comcast business service counts against my residential cap? It's all on net still?

It all comes down to greed. Nothing is free, everyone is paying for bandwidth. The ISP's gain the most by peering because without it, they are not an ISP, they are just a large intranet.

These games screw no one but me and you. We already pay steady raising overpriced fee's for internet. This is nothing but a way to increase profit for shareholders. How about this is just the cost of doing business. But because companies like Comcast, Verizon, ATT etc. are soo greedy they blackmail (oops I mean lobby) to make sure laws pass to make it expensive or almost impossible, or even in some cases ILLEGAL for anyone else to be an ISP.

I don't have any options for internet because Comcast stuffed money into some peoples pockets to buy what they want.

I hope the merger fails, regardless if it doesn't impact my area, I know it will because as they grow they get more greedy and prices keep going up. It should be the larger the company and more customers the more successful it should be and thus the customers and everyone rewarded together.

**sorry for long msg and rant lol** I just don't get people saying everyone should be forced to pay multiple providers. how would you like it if you had a business and you can't get to google because google saying you must buy google internet, and yahoo, and netflix or any other company you want to use. sorry you have ATT or Comcast, you have to buy ours if you want access. That's what's happening. It's stupid and childish.


BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Integra Telecom

2 recommendations

reply to PlusOne

Re: This is NOT how settlement free peering works.

said by PlusOne :

A very good read and one that really explains why settlement free peering is dying.

An outdated read at best.

Since that article was published (2011), there has been a growth of IXPs around the country that help facilitate settlement-free peering with numerous networks.

While settlement-free may be dying with a select few networks, there is a large volume of ISPs and CDNs that find it rather efficient (and logical) to arrange settlement-free peering.

It just so happens that a large number of networks (albeit not as large as the networks in the news most often) put greed aside and instead focus on peering arrangements that better their networks and benefit their end users (end users who influence the profits of the said networks).

There's a holistic way of running a business and then there's the greed-fueled way. No surprise the extremely varying customer satisfaction levels when comparing the two models.


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

2 recommendations

reply to battleop

Re: keep all honest

Its proof because Packeteers is worrying about it? What a strange conclusion to draw.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp



firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

3 recommendations

reply to jmn1207

Re: This is NOT how settlement free peering works.

said by jmn1207:

said by battleop:

Settlement free peering is almost always a 1:1. I don't know why companies EXPECT to get a free ride on a 100:1 ratio.

Maybe the tier 1 providers should be named and shamed?

»www.cedmagazine.com/articles/201···-1-party

Maybe those freeloading subscribers who request data from ANYWHERE should be named and shamed.

I mean the gall of paying $50-$100 a month for internet and expecting to be able to relax to an evening of surfing and watching online videos! It's ridiculous. They should know it's been proven over the last 15 years that from 3 pm till 10 pm is one of the slowest times on the internet and if they would just balance their use out by watching videos at 2 am. Crying whining users who go to bed early are really the problem here.

It's not like these ISP's spend enough money every month on public relations advertising that could buy dozens of edge routers instead that would increase capacity...
--
Say no to those that ‘inadvertently make false representations’.


PlusOne

@50.182.54.x

3 recommendations

reply to battleop

said by battleop:

Settlement free peering is almost always a 1:1. I don't know why companies EXPECT to get a free ride on a 100:1 ratio. In the end Netflix and Youtube are trying to shame their ways into free bandwidth with sleazy tactics. They have to pay someone for their connection to the internet which they have been paying Level3 and Cogent. Now they are trying to directly peer with large ISPs while cutting Level3 and Cogent out of the picture. They are attempting to shame ISPs into just rolling over and giving them settlement free peering which would greatly reduce their bandwidth costs.

+1

Settlement free peering is a holdover from the 1st years of the internet when streaming video was not the major use. There should be no such thing anymore as settlement free peering. The CDNs and backbone providers keep perpetuating this myth as a way to minimize their costs and not pay their share of true costs of delivering video for the content providers.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

4 recommendations

Settlement free peering is almost always a 1:1. I don't know why companies EXPECT to get a free ride on a 100:1 ratio. In the end Netflix and Youtube are trying to shame their ways into free bandwidth with sleazy tactics. They have to pay someone for their connection to the internet which they have been paying Level3 and Cogent. Now they are trying to directly peer with large ISPs while cutting Level3 and Cogent out of the picture. They are attempting to shame ISPs into just rolling over and giving them settlement free peering which would greatly reduce their bandwidth costs.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.