Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Compares ISP Streaming Performance
boustrophedon writes "The Netflix blog compared streaming performance among 20 top ISPs for the past three months. A Netflix HD stream can provide up to 4800 kbps, but the fastest American ISP, Charter, could sustain only 2667 kbps on average. Most Canadian ISPs beat that, with champ Rogers providing an average of 3020 kbps. Clearwire, Frontier, and CenturyTel were in the doghouse with under 1600 kbps."
I've got Verizon FiOS, and though I know it's not that common, but I can get steady 3.7 MB/s streams.
I'm not going to suggest that you are incorrect, but I am going to suggest that your single piece anecdotal evidence is not nearly enough to discredit the report Netflix put together.
Very nice. Rather impressive to pre-empt the ISP's.
"well, your competitor is able to provide better speeds to more customers, why are you whining? Oh? AND You charge more for lower service? Interesting. Well, lets let your customers decide for themselves with more facts who they want"
It'd make sense at this point for an ISP with a bit of sense to make a nice deal with Netflix to improve things here, then everyone wins.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Yeah, my cable modem is stupid fast....only problem is, running full tilt I can go through my monthly bandwidth cap in eleven and a half hours.
Fortunately, for the moment, the overage cap is $50 so if you download a bunch some month you just say, "Woohoo, unlimited bandwidth." For example, in January I downloaded 750MB which put me 625MB over my cap and would have cost an extra $780. Ridiculous no? And now the CRTC (equivalent of FTC) has ruled that the major ISPs are allowed to pass usage based billing fees onto third party providers which means there will be no more unlimited plans and the billing cap will likely go away.
Basically, Rogers and Bell want you to watch their channels, not use Netflix, AppleTV, etc. And the wretched hive of scum and villany known as the CRTC is letting them do it.
Not much point in fast internet if you can't use it.
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
There's Verizon FiOS and Verizon DSL. Is the measurement for FiOS, DSL, or both?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
...but how in the hell is anyone supposed to pick the colors out of those graphs, at least three of them are the same shade of sky blue.
I'd like to see this redone as the graph is certainly compelling, just a little bit more readable.
If the world isn't beating a path to your door you're doing something wrong.
Fantastic. The worst ISP in Canada is still faster than the best ISP in the US.
Also, while interesting, this is basically useless to the average US consumer. It's not like you get a chance to choose between those 16 US ISPs. In the US, you're lucky if you get to choose between 2 of them.
The different connections need to be split.
For example, Verizon needs to have:
Verizon DSL 768kbps - 1Mbps
Verizon DSL 1.5Mbps - 3Mbps
Verizon DSL 4Mbps - 7Mbps
Verizon DSL 10Mbps - 15Mbps
Verizon FIOS 15Mbps
Verizon FIOS 25Mbps
Verizon FIOS 50Mbps
Obviously a low end DSL connection is not going to be the same as those who can order the 10-15Mbps DSL connection. And it is likely that the DSL 10-15Mbps connection is going to be different from the FIOS 15Mbps.
To group all of those connections into one Verizon line is completely misleading. And if they didn't take measurements from all of those connections, then then that makes the results even more suspect as the graph doesn't specify what type of connection they chose to test with.
The larger the ISP, the more they’re penalized by the more rural regions which are limited to DS3 45 Mbps circuits feeding a whole town.
only problem is, running full tilt I can go through my monthly bandwidth cap in eleven and a half hours.
We badly need a "truth in advertising" law that would make it illegal to label a "100Mbps connection" with a 5GB monthly cap as anything above the 16331bps it really is (yes, less than 16kbps, this is not an error). Providing a bigger burst is ok but only if that's clearly marked as such.
Toss in something about the scam that lets ISPs call 100Mbps down/128kbps up by the bigger number. If you want to use just one number, you'd need to print the lower one. Anything else is deceiving the customer.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
label a "100Mbps connection" with a 5GB monthly cap as anything above the 16331bps it really is
I completely agree.
I'm getting more and more pissed off as greater numbers of people are beginning to understand what monthly transfer caps are, and then proceed to voluntarily or forcedly believe the outright fucking lie that these assholes are perpetuating (and that most folks here also believe!):
[bullshit]
Enforcing a limit on data transfer over a given period of time is a very direct and extremely effective method of completely alleviating the problems that can be caused by a small number of users consuming most or all of the bandwidth on any given, shared network segment.
[/bullshit]
The statement that you just read, enclosed in [bullshit] tags, is 100% bullshit.
It's a problem with bandwidth, not a problem with transfer. Don't ever believe the utter lie that these two concepts are inherently and directly correlated. While they can be correlated, they do not have to be, and, in true Slashdot spirit, they are most certainly not causal.
Lastly, if you don't understand WHY what I say is true, think of it this way:
Take a look at the gigabit switch sitting on your desk (or pretend you have one). You've used it very lightly. You just browse the web through it. Maybe some games. No youtube, no torrents, no downloading. You've owned it for a while now, and you've transferred about 10 gigabytes of data through it in that whole time.
I own the exact same model, and I'm coming over your house later and swapping out switches with you, but the difference between your switch and mine is that I pushed 5 terabyes of data through mine every single day I've owned it.
Given that neither switch is defective, when I switch hardware with you, will you notice the difference?
The worst part about this whole thing is that bandwidth is a fundamental commodity and property of multi-segment interconnected networks in general (read: the Internet). It's so fundamental that, rather than paying specifically for the connection speed of a physical link into someone's network, ISPs pay specifically for bandwidth usage based on a well accepted model commonly called 95th percentile billing because of how fairly and accurately it reflects a given link's impact on the network. Overall transfer over a given period, while it may be calculated, is irrelevant because the amount of data pushed through a link simply doesn't fucking matter. Data transfer at all levels of a network is a function of bandwidth, not the other way around. Were you to graph it out as a function, as time approaches infinity, transfer does as well.
On behalf of the ISPs though, this misconception and billing model is absolutely genius. If I literally possessed a LIMITLESS source of product (data transfer) and, irrespective of size, somehow managed to convince you that it was reasonable for me to charge you for a finite, expiring quantity of it, I'd laugh all the way to the fucking bank every time you came back for more.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Better graph: http://waxy.org/2011/01/colorblind_leading_the_blind/