Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Issuing "Report Cards" On Carriers' Streaming Speeds

Posted by Unknown on from the not-like-you-can-do-anything dept.

OakDragon (885217) writes In the shadow of the "Net Neutrality" debate, Google's YouTube has created a service to report on your carrier's usage and speed, summarizing the data in a "Lower/Standard/High Definition" graph. You may see the service offered when a video buffers or stutters. A message could display under the video asking "Experiencing interruptions? Find out why." Find your own provider's grade here.

110 comments

  1. Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how in their illustration, the internet is a series of tubes

    1. Re:Nice! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Duh, that's how the internet works.
      Don't you listen to politicians?

    2. Re:Nice! by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      That's why they call it youTUBE, duh.

    3. Re:Nice! by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Internet IS a series of tubes. But the information is still carried by the little trucks that drive through these tubes!

    4. Re:Nice! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Have a look again, clearly the information is contained in tiny balls that bounce around the tubes.

    5. Re:Nice! by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      Are the tubes made of Glass or Copper ?

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    6. Re:Nice! by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      The Tubes are made of people.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    7. Re:Nice! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The tubes are corporations?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Nice! by AmonRa1979 · · Score: 1

      Until I can make Soylent Green from them, they aren't people!

    9. Re:Nice! by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      The Tubes are made of people.

      So then . . . the tubes are blood veins . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
  2. Grade is on the curve by paiute · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long until Comcast sends YouTube a bill for carrying the HD content?

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google would give them the finger and just continue rolling out Google Fiber. If people can't get their YouTube through Comcast, then Comcast is going to lose a lot of customers.

    2. Re: Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already pay Comcast a peering fee for that, like other streaming and content services. I.e. both the customer and service pay for the bits twice.

    3. Re: Grade is on the curve by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      Each network pays for half of the costs of transferring the bits. The ISP charges its customers for its half. The data source pays part of its half to the customer's network because they do more than half the work.

      Businesses like Netflix and YouTube necessarily emit large amounts of information from a small number of sources to a large number of destinations. This is always going to be much cheaper than delivering traffic to a very large number of destinations, like ISPs have to do. We assume the traffic benefits both networks evenly, so each side should pay half the costs. If not to the ISP, who should Netflix or YouTube pay the costs to? They don't bear them directly, because the traffic is necessarily much cheaper for them to carry than it is for the ISP.

    4. Re: Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already pay Comcast a peering fee for that, like other streaming and content services. I.e. both the customer and service pay for the bits twice.

      Citation needed.

    5. Re:Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right.

      People are predicting that the ISPs are going to be the ones holding the content providers hostage, but everything about cable suggests that it's the content providers that have the most power.

      Rarely do content providers pay a cable company for access. It's usually the other way around. I suspect ISPs are going to have to do the same thing in the future.

    6. Re: Grade is on the curve by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And yet, the some net non-neutrality supporters complain that it was unfair for Netflix to put all their content on the net for free and leave the cost to all the poor Comcast users. That was seriously their analogy, despite the fact that Comcast only had the problem because of customers who paid Comcast for the ability to get Netflix, and the fact that Netflix pays its own ISP. But they sure do a good job making the big monopoly company seem like the poor abused little guy.

    7. Re: Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. ISP's have to deliver data to their customers.

      That's the business their in. That's what they are supposed to do. They're not doing Youtube or anyone except their customers a favor. Their customers want to visit a website, and it's the ISP's business to be well enough connected that they can do so.

      It's not a co-op between the content provider and the ISP to get that done. It's the ISPs responsibility to be well enough connected.

      Talk about getting it the wrong way around. sheez.

    8. Re: Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If not to the ISP, who should Netflix or YouTube pay the costs to? They don't bear them directly, because the traffic is necessarily much cheaper for them to carry than it is for the ISP.

      I work for a service provider and for some strange reason we also have something that we consider an ISP. We are charged for the volume we put out into the net. Our customers are charged by their ISP for getting the data from the net. How these ISPs distribute the money is their own matter. If they think they got too much data from a single source they might look on their contracts with the respective peers, but they might notice that the volume is covered there. They might also notice that they sold more bandwidth than they bought. That is not the content providers problem. There are far too many carriers involved to handle more than your direct peers.

    9. Re: Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's hard to do your own research with Jimbo's cock in your mouth?

    10. Re:Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the circlejerking regarding Google fiber... what happens when Google turns out to be a company interested in profits just like Comcast?

      Why don't you ever learn?

    11. Re:Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really don't understand how monopolies work do you.

    12. Re: Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We assume the traffic benefits both networks evenly, so each side should pay half the costs. If not to the ISP, who should Netflix or YouTube pay the costs to?

      Netflix and YouTube should pay their own ISPs. There's no reason for them to pay their own ISP, and my ISP, and your ISP. The ISPs need to work out their own peering agreements to deal with lopsided data flow.

    13. Re: Grade is on the curve by grahamm · · Score: 2

      If not to the ISP, who should Netflix or YouTube pay the costs to? They don't bear them directly, because the traffic is necessarily much cheaper for them to carry than it is for the ISP.

      They should pay the costs for their connection to/at the Internet Exchange Points (IXP) the same way the ISPs pay for their connections to the IXP.

    14. Re:Grade is on the curve by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Google would give them the finger and just continue rolling out Google Fiber. If people can't get their YouTube through Comcast, then Comcast is going to lose a lot of customers.

      Google has no interest in rolling out fiber across the country, or even in just the major cities. They don't have the money or the political influence to become a major telco. They simply want more people to use more of their bandwidth-intensive services, and they're using their small fiber operations and this "report card" shit to pressure telcos into upgrading their networks and reducing their costs (both to the end user and to Google).

    15. Re: Grade is on the curve by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      You are imagining some hypothetical Internet that is nothing like the Internet we actually have. You are correct that ISP's have to deliver data to their customers. But only from sources that do their fair share of the work. If I place a computer in Antarctica, Comcast doesn't have to run a line to Antarctica at no charge to me just because one of their customers wants to reach that machine.

      The Internet we actually have grew organically by organizations each doing their part to interconnect with others for mutual benefit. When the costs divide evenly and fairly, settlement-free peering is used and nobody pays anything to anybody else. When the costs don't naturally divide evenly, settlements are used. It has been this way for decades.

    16. Re: Grade is on the curve by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      That's stupid and inefficient. Why should I pay X to pay Y when I can just pay Y directly?

      That's actually what Netflix used to do, paying Level3 to reach Comcast. This was awful for everyone. Netflix paid more than they needed to. Comcast's customers had to go over Level3's network to reach Netflix. Level3's peering to Comcast was overloaded. And Level3 and Comcast had to deal with the lopsided data flow that was Netflix's fault. The solution was obvious and simple -- Netflix should just pay Comcast directly, and cut out the middleman. Now Level3's customers have connections to Comcast that aren't overloaded and Comcast customers don't have to use Level3 to reach Netflix.

    17. Re: Grade is on the curve by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're imagining some alternate universe with an alternate Internet that works some other way. But in this world, for decades, settlement-based peering has been used when costs fall unequally on the parties.

      Are you arguing that everyone should be able to run a line to the nearest IXP, pay only that IXP, and have Internet access to everyone and everything? Are you aware of the many, many reasons that can't possibly work? Who would pay to carry traffic across the Atlantic?

    18. Re: Grade is on the curve by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to mock an argument than to address it.

      It has been the norm on the Internet for decades to use settlement-based peering when the costs fall unequally on the parties. It is much cheaper for Netflix to generate high-volumes of traffic from a small number of sources placed specifically where the costs are lowest than it is for Comcast to deliver high-volumes of traffic to a large number of sources placed in their customers' homes. The argument that it's fair for Comcast's customers to pay much more than half the cost of delivering Netflix's traffic to them is the one that should be mocked.

    19. Re: Grade is on the curve by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Then that argument should be made. Probably the whole net neutrality arguments are being oversimplified in a way to present it to the public.

      Personally, I think people who use more bandwidth should be charged more, and conversely the light users should be charged less. Of course, this does NOT mean replacing that $100/mo cable bill that was cancelled with a $120/mo internet bill. But imagine $20/mo for the DSL level broadband making it very affordable for the person who only checks mail and visits a few web pages, or someone being able to pay a premium to get unlimited bandwidth again.

    20. Re:Grade is on the curve by reiserifick · · Score: 1

      Then we will move on to something else, but meanwhile we will have improved significantly over Comcast. Same thing happened 10 years ago when the cell phone companies ate the land-line companies' lunch. Now cell service providers suck, but we're still way better off than we were.

    21. Re: Grade is on the curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You rarely pay for "Internet" access through an IXP. You usually get free peering at an IXP though. "Internet" inplies transit and transit means moving across networks to another network. Connecting directly to the destination network is typically free.

      This is the default in Europe. Customers of an IXP typically have open peering that requires absolutely no notice that you're going to start transferring data to them from the IXP. You don't get any transit and you may not get access to another network's entire network, but it's simple and fast.

    22. Re: Grade is on the curve by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      "Connecting directly to the destination network is typically free ... you may not get access to another network's entire network."

      Exactly. When the costs naturally split fairly evenly, there's no reason for anyone to pay anyone else. If both networks do their fair share, and we presume the traffic benefits both parties roughly equally, there's no reason for anyone to pay anyone else. Any argument that X should pay Y equally argues that Y should pay X. Senders pay to send, recipients pay to receive. This is a pretty typical case, and it's the justification for settlement-free peering.

      So why don't you get access to their entire network? Because for some parts of the network, bringing the traffic to the destination network is *not* anywhere close to half the work. When the work doesn't naturally divide equally, settlement-based peering is used. This is how it's been for decades.

      In the case of traffic from someone like YouTube or Netflix to a customer of an ISP like AT&T or Comcast, the costs don't naturally divide evenly. YouTube and Netflix use a small number of sources located wherever the cost is least. AT&T and Comcast have a large number of destinations located wherever they happen to be. This is a direct and inevitable result of the business model companies like Netflix and YouTube have chosen. We presume the traffic benefits both sides equally and so each side should pay half the cost.

      In the vast majority of cases, the sender should bear roughly half the cost of delivering their traffic and the recipient should bear half. The result of this kind of imbalance has always been settlement-based peering.

    23. Re:Grade is on the curve by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      The whole point of Google Fiber was to scare Comcast, etc into doing better. It's growing because the incumbents haven't changed their practices outside of those markets. They're still hoping to scare them by taking some big markets, and threatening bigger markets.

      Regardless, even if Google went full-speed ahead, it would take a long time to roll out to most major markets.

  3. Dupe... by by+(1706743) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Posted by samzenpus on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:04PM from the how-do-you-stack-up? dept.

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

    1. Re:Dupe... by Robadob · · Score: 2

      + the actual google page has been around for atleast 6 months, it was posted to HN that long ago.

    2. Re:Dupe... by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      Submitter here... let me apologize, it was submitted in ignorance. I just saw the story today.

      --
      Dark Reflection
    3. Re:Dupe... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      That's ok. What I don't understand is how you get a dupe accepted by the moderators. Can anyone submit anything and it gets onto the feed, or do you have to include special keywords?

    4. Re:Dupe... by ray-auch · · Score: 2

      And it still says "results not available for your location. Check back soon".

      Bit of transparency on where it is available and when it might be elsewhere would be nice - how many years is "soon" ?

    5. Re:Dupe... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Can anyone submit anything and it gets onto the feed, or do you have to include special keywords?

      Hah, I dunno! My last two submissions have been accepted, though. I don't have any special help that I know of.

      --
      Dark Reflection
  4. Good idea, but terrible implementation by otter42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, what gives with the goofy webpages that try to scroll like pages of a book? One of the wonderful things about a web page is for it to be long and easy to scroll through, instead of requiring me to scroll in order to get to the next text section. That makes it really awkward to go back and forth.

    Second, where can I search for other people's results? I want to switch to RCN in Boston, how does this webpage help me know how they're doing?

    --
    www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    1. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      It's not intended to help you switch.

      It appears intended to send you running to your ISP to complain... ....so you can watch more YouTube, so they can deliver more ads and gather more data on you.

    2. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by viperidaenz · · Score: 1, Funny

      To change the location I believe you click the "Change Location" link next to where it has auto-detected your ISP/Location.

      No wonder you can't figure out how to scroll a web page...

    3. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I imagine you would click on the "Compare providers in your area" button. I click that and it shows that AT&T DSL in my area is almost as good as Comcast cable (which is ridiculous and just goes to show how little bandwidth youtube actually needs).

    4. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Informative

      No such button on my view of the page, which includes "Results from my location are not yet available, check back later."

    5. Re: Good idea, but terrible implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a comparative analysis is the only way it would make a difference. It would be a real public service, and the fastest way to get sued unfortunately.

    6. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Designers' have never liked the web and love to break it - this is the result.

      ...says the dickhead who deliberately abuses this site's "code" post format option that he knows wraps his post in <tt> tags. I want to allow other, responsible posters to post their code snippets using the code format and have those code snippets render in monospace font while de-douchebagging Arker's format abuse.

      There is no discriminator function for that.

    7. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not intended to help you switch. It appears intended to send you running to your ISP to complain...

      If you are not going to switch, why should your ISP care if you complain?

    8. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Seems to require JavaScript. I see a white page. So I guess you should consider yourself lucky to see anything.

      The animated website I suppose is because of people like you who enable that horseshit.

      So I guess I take that lucky comment back. You got the internet you deserve. Quit yer bitchin.

    9. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does it help me complain? My internet sucks. So? I only have one option, and my ISP knows it.

    10. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, too. Typical US-centric crap from Google.

    11. Re:Good idea, but terrible implementation by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Second, where can I search for other people's results? I want to switch to RCN in Boston, how does this webpage help me know how they're doing?

      Manually set your area, and all ISPs in that area should pop up below the graph.

  5. Hmm, the only ISP listed in my area is Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But I already know they're crap. I've seen their advertising, and that alone makes me want to beat up their executives.

  6. Swap DASH for HTTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    How about giving us our HD streams over HTTP instead of DASH. Then maybe it wouldn't buffer every time we tried to do a seek. It's sucked balls since October 2013 when you turned all the MP4 HTTP streams (type 37) into DASH video (137) and audio (140). And yeah, we haven't forgotten that you nuked all the >128kbps M4A audio in 141 too, limiting us to 128kbps.

    And every one of those problems is on Google's end, not the ISP's end.

    And as long as I'm pipe dreaming here, can we please shoot the UXtard responsible for turning the YouTube comments from a useless searchable-by-date because it was at least paginated stream of crap into a useless unsearchable because it's an infinite-scrolling stream of crap that requires multiple mouse clicks to expand every comment longer than three lines?

    1. Re:Swap DASH for HTTP by sir-gold · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a plugin for firefox (no idea why it needs a plugin, but whatever) that allows you to access the "hidden" youtube settings. One of these settings allows you to disable dash entirely. There are also settings to disable auto-quality, and to set a default quality level.

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

    2. Re:Swap DASH for HTTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you disable DASH, doesn't that mean you just can't get 1080p video and are stuck with 720p at best?

      I myself just drag-and-drop the youtube links into vlc and let it play them directly. VLC doesn't do DASH either, so according to this bug it is stuck at 720p.

      But at least there are no ads and no autoplay and it is easy to resize, etc, etc.

    3. Re:Swap DASH for HTTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      umm...dash is* http

      but sure, be pissed at google for the bitrates they provide

  7. Google graph by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

    If you can interpret the graph of "Video consumptiion AND streaming quality" you're doing better than me, https://www.google.com/get/vid...

    --
    work in progress
    1. Re:Google graph by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Streaming quality is inversely related to video consumption. For example, at 2am when hardly anybody is online, you can get great streaming quality. I agree that it's confusing, since it should really be "Video consumption and streaming quality problem/contention level" or something.

  8. Time Warner cable is actually better? by nimbius · · Score: 2

    of the two major providers in my area, Time Warner is actually better (for youtube video quality) which i found rather shocking. That having been said, they do suck on a number of other levels.

    1. things like recursing your own DNS with unbound or other software will get you added to their redirector for "unwanted/malicious traffic." basically, you're robbing them of SRVFAIL ad revenue and they dont like it. Encrypting lots of traffic or using encrypted IRC also seems to trigger this shit, which is easily circumvented by not using their DNS.
    2. signup isn't mandatory if you handle your own DNS, but again if you dont then expect to never get to the internet. Signing up means downloading their software, creating an email address, agreeing (again) to the ToS despite signing it on installation. you also get to opt into their advertising.
    3. two words: bulk mail. You'll get at least 3 or 4 letters a month reminding you to upgrade to the bundle or a higher data rate. higher data rates arent required when you null-route advertising servers and use noscript/adblock.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:Time Warner cable is actually better? by D'Sphitz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's something fishy with these results. The Google report rates the connection from my small, local ISP at "Standard Definition", and then when I compare providers in my area apparently Comcast is "HD Verified". This just doesn't add up.

      The problem with this is that I have available, and pay for, fiber broadband advertised at 90mbps, and speedtest.net concludes that I am getting what I pay for (92 up/35 down). I have a Roku or other streaming media player in every room and it's not unusual to have multiple HD movies streaming at the same time in different rooms, in addition to tablets, xbox, and other internet activity.

      So I have to conclude that either Google isn't testing my actual connection as it appears to and is instead showing an average from my ISP, or the results are fixed and the big, shitty cable companies have "sponsored" their own "HD Verified" results. The latter seems more likely, I've had Comcast internet in this area before fiber became available and it doesn't compare, and even the cheapest packages at my ISP are pretty quick.

    2. Re:Time Warner cable is actually better? by tepples · · Score: 2

      Google isn't testing my actual connection as it appears to and is instead showing an average from my ISP

      Bingo. The report card shows an aggregate of tests performed on YouTube users among your ISP's customers in that city.

    3. Re:Time Warner cable is actually better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is because Comcast is co-locating some YouTube streaming servers? That's a popular thing these days, to try to reduce network traffic and improve performance. I wouldn't think it'd be a problem on your connection, though.

  9. Foreplay? by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

    I'm not saying I think they know it now, or are intentionally moving in this direction, but consider the market forces involved: Is this, Netflix's similar effort, and ISP throttling, ultimately just foreplay to getting in bed together? They have the potential to really harm each other, and that has to get through to them eventually.

    Seems to me, barring common carrier or another path to true net neutrality, both sides have more to gain by colluding than by fighting. If big content and big ISPs work together, they could create a barrier to independent ISPs and content.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:Foreplay? by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      They are forcing ISPs to uphold their end of their deal with the customer, which is the good part.
      However, the ISPs will probably improve service speed for _only_ Youtube as a result.
      This creates a barrier to other video services.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    2. Re:Foreplay? by organgtool · · Score: 1

      Seems to me, barring common carrier or another path to true net neutrality, both sides have more to gain by colluding than by fighting.

      No, the ISPs have a lot to gain by blocking video traffic. They make tons of money on their television services and paid video-on-demand services. Every second that you're watching Hulu, YouTube, or Netflix is a second that you're not watching their paid services. They're terrified that their customer might find that they can get most of their entertainment from online sources and cut the cord from the ISP's highly-lucrative television services. Add in the fact that these third-party video services create congestion on the ISP's networks and could require them to upgrade their infrastructure and you can begin to understand why the ISPs are motivated to throttling other provider's content.

      In addition to that, the ISPs have more leverage in negotiations with third-party content providers because many of the ISP's customers have little to no choice for an alternative provider. Therefore, the third-party content providers need to pay the extortion fees to the ISPs in order to continue reaching their customers. This situation is not going to change unless serious competition or regulation is introduced.

    3. Re:Foreplay? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      It's not like they'll force Netflix to pay...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    4. Re:Foreplay? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      And that is why they should never have been allowed to become ISPs in the first place

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  10. Doesn't work, and won't tell me why by sir-gold · · Score: 2

    Trying to click "your results" just gives me a popup saying "Results from your location are not available".
    It doesn't tell me what my "location" is, and it doesn't give me any option to change the location (since the "change location" link is on the results page that it refuses to show me)

    If the location auto detect fails, it should give the user an option to manually set the location (or browse other locations), instead of just refusing to give any results whatsoever.

    1. Re:Doesn't work, and won't tell me why by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Google will be improving the tool soon - they plan to do it right after they've updated Google Voice!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  11. methodology sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are essentially combining people who pay for minimal service with those who pay for top service. That doesn't work. I have no problem getting HD quality content at any time of the day from my ADSL provider. That same provider is ranked poor simply because the company offers a less service at a much lesser price (significantly less than competing cable internet providers).

    What I'm getting at is that it's not the ISP which is providing poor service in the case of 1.5mbps ADSL. If you notice in my case the ISP is exceeding the quality of service being sold to 1.5mbps subscribers of the ISP. Of course these people can't stream HD content, but that isn't because of the ISPs poor service. It's because of the customer selecting a lower tier option.

    I would never subscribe to Comcast because Comcast plays all sorts of tricks on its subscribers and overall provides lousy service. It might be "faster" than my 10mbps ADSL service, but I can't get that 10mbps during prime time, if I want to download torrents (hell they were disconnecting people even), etc.

    ADSL service isn't of good quality everywhere, but that isn't a failing of the provider in most cases. It's a problem line quality. I have no issue with this as the difference is one type of service provider lies outright and the other is just providing the service for which the line is capable of (ie they aren't oversubscribing it).

    1. Re:methodology sucks by tepples · · Score: 1

      ADSL service isn't of good quality everywhere, but that isn't a failing of the provider in most cases. It's a problem line quality.

      Other than the provider (that is, the local phone company), who is responsible for line quality?

  12. Some Problems by DERoss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The vertical scale in the charts has no indices or any indication of what is measured. I see the statement to the right "Daily video activity is averaged
    over 30 days.", but it does not say what is really averaged. Is this MB/sec, percentage of available bandwidth, or what?

    In any case, the throughput of a broadband connection is not the only issue in moving large amounts of bytes. I am having a problem with software for an HP printer. Today, HP advised me to download the entire software package for that printer, approximately 1.4 GB. However, HP's server could not deliver event 300 KB/sec into my 15 MB/sec broadband connection. There are servers delivering video that cannot keep up with playback speeds.

    When I cannot get downloads a MB/sec rates, I generally blame the server at the other end and not my broadband provider. After all, I can immediately try a different download from a different source, and get my full 15 MB/sec.

    1. Re:Some Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not YouTube. I can stream 1080p just fine from any YouTube datacenter in the world at any time of the day.

    2. Re:Some Problems by swillden · · Score: 1

      When I cannot get downloads a MB/sec rates, I generally blame the server at the other end and not my broadband provider.

      When the server at the other end is YouTube, it's not the server at the other end. Google has enormous capacity, both computing and bandwidth, and is extensively peered. But people do tend to blame the server, which is why Google is trying to make clear that it's not YouTube that's sucking when you have problems watching videos.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Some Problems by DERoss · · Score: 1

      I have never had a problem specifically with YouTube. However, my statement about blaming servers stands. YouTube is just not a target for such blame.

    4. Re:Some Problems by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say it's actually a little more complex than that. It depends not just on the source server but on every point between the source server and your machine. In the case of the Netflix/Comcast spat a while ago, for example, the problem wasn't Comcast's network, or Netflix, or the network between them, but Comcast's connection to the network between them -- so it was Comcast's fault, but not in a way that would show up with connections to other servers that took a different path.

      And regardless of whether or not *you* blame YouTube when it's slow, many users do, which is why Google is doing this.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Some Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In any case, the throughput of a broadband connection is not the only issue in moving large amounts of bytes. I am having a problem with software for an HP printer. Today, HP advised me to download the entire software package for that printer, approximately 1.4 GB. However, HP's server could not deliver event 300 KB/sec into my 15 MB/sec broadband connection. There are servers delivering video that cannot keep up with playback speeds.

      Googles page very nicely explains that. They go through an elaborate if dumbed-down "tube" analogy to explain that poor throughput could be anywhere between and including your computer and their servers. Obviously, the implication is that it's the interface between their own very fast network and your (nominally) very fast connection, but you do have to take on faith that their network is very fast.

      When I cannot get downloads a MB/sec rates, I generally blame the server at the other end and not my broadband provider. After all, I can immediately try a different download from a different source, and get my full 15 MB/sec.

      That's exactly what your provider would like you to believe. It's why many of them will prioritize speedtest.net traffic or host a speedtest target. Your ISP is highly motivated to make you think that you get every bit of bandwidth you pay for, even if they're throttling the link to HP's network provider. It's easy to blame someone else, especially if that 3rd party is currently refusing to pay for prioritized access to your ISP's customers.

  13. Fuck the king by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anything that shows the douchebaggery of ISPs, is fucking awesome.

  14. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on /. this is OLD news by now. The google Video Quality Report thing has been available for MONTHS, you've done like 5 stories on this already!

  15. Ironically by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

    I could not load the page linked to - probably because their bandwidth is swamped due to the publicity!

  16. needs a few tweaks... by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    like user feedback... display test results from users of the listed ISP's in the area...

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  17. Great, but.... by countach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had a look at them a few days ago, and I had no idea how to interpret the graphs. If I'm tech savvy and I don't know what they mean, God help the average person.

    1. Re:Great, but.... by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      The average person wouldn't comprehend that the graph has no meaning as presented. It falls under the "shit they don't know they don't know" category.

  18. C'mon. The tubes analogy really is a good one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too bad the tubes analogy has been so ridiculed.

    It's really difficult to explain to the layman the technical aspect of how "fast lanes" work in the context of net neutrality. Trying to get them to understand how packets that need to be forwarded on a congested router are buffered and move through priority queues just doesn't work.

    Packets full of data moving through tubes is much easier for them to understand. Adding that ISPs want to sell some people the privilege of having their packets moved to the front of the tube greatly simplifies the technical aspect of the discussion.

    1. Re:C'mon. The tubes analogy really is a good one. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      The "information superhighway" analogy isn't perfect, but I think it is close enough to correct to be a useful analogy while being familiar enough for laymen to understand.

      You can think of the Internet like our system of roads. There are major interstate highways; these are the backbone of the Internet, with many lanes of bandwidth. Smaller highways connect to the major interstates; these are run by your ISPs. Even smaller roads lead from those smaller highways to your home. When you send an email or type the address of a website into your browser, that message is broken into small pieces (say small enough to fit in a motorcyclist's pocket) that are carried along the roads, highways, and interstates to the destination of the email or the computer that hosts that website. If one of those small pieces gets lost, the destination computer sends a message back asking the sending computer to send another copy of that piece.

      At the interchanges between the interstate and the smaller highways and the smaller highways and roads, there are stop lights, yield signs, signs describing how to get to certain destinations, and other traffic control mechanisms. As a road becomes saturated with messages on motorcycles, the "highway patrol" will tell messengers to wait their turn before proceeding onto the road, or to take a detour to another less congested road. By detouring messages to different roads, messages can still get through even if one road is busy, damaged, or blocked by censorship.

      The principle of "network neutrality" or "net neutrality" is that all the motorcycle messengers on a road are treated the same. But some ISPs have noticed a lot of messengers wearing the Netflix logo on their jackets traveling their highways, and so want to restrict how many Netflix messengers travel on their highways for free at the same time. [While I use Netflix in this explanation, this could also affect other companies that send lots of messengers along the Internet.] Their plan for "fast lanes" is to set up a toll booth on their highways, and if too many Netflix messengers want to go through at once they'll have those messengers wait in line. Alternately, Netflix could pay them to set up an "EZ-Pass" lane to the highway; if Netflix is willing to pay a higher toll, the ISP will let those messengers pass through the tolls more quickly. Opponents of the "fast lane" plan worry that if an ISP has many EZ-Pass lanes for various companies, it will result in messengers whose companies DON'T have EZ-Pass (like small start-ups that can't affect the EZ-Pass) being stuck at the tolls for a long time while their competitors' messengers fly through unslowed.

      Another possible solution to the problem of congestion on the Internet would be for companies to make the interstates, highways, and roads broader so they can carry more traffic. In the real world, we can't always expand roads with more lanes because of existing buildings lining them or other constraints. In the Internet, those land-availability constraints don't really apply (though there are a few other constraints.) However, one constraint that exists both for real-world roads and for Internet roads is that expanding roads with more lanes costs money.

  19. This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOW DO YOU KNOW what service level these customers subscribe to in the first place? How do you know that these users subscribe to service levels that allow smooth hd playback in the first place? And how do you know that these same customers also have home networks that are HEALTHY ENOUGH to deliver the service anyways? YOU DON'T, DO YOU? YOU JUST WANT TO LAY BLAME BUT THEN RUN AWAY AND NOT BE AROUND TO ANSWER THESE UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS WELL FUCK YOU

    1. Re:This is bullshit by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      How does one stream nitrates? Try again in your native language and I will translate.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does one stream nitrates? Try again in your native language and I will translate.

      How does one engage in utter douchebaggery over a typo?

    3. Re:This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a punctilious butthole.

  20. This is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um... from average YouTube plays? I may be way off base, but doesn't each buffer send a packet back to Google? They already know the nitrate your streaming and the length of the video. Given enough videos could you identify a users experience fairly accurately?

  21. But wait, that's not all! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 0

    I'm issuing report cards on Youtube
    Current usability/UI C-
    Privacy policy/TOS F
    Search functionality D+
    Overall mobile support D
    WDTV app F-
    Funny cat videos B+
    Embedded advertising D-
    DMCA Understanding/Implementation D

    LOL, sorry for the poor formatting. it looked better but /. kept saying "Error: use less white space and junk characters." Very Youtubish.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  22. assumes provider has only one offering by WiPEOUT · · Score: 1

    The results aggregate data for all users of each provider. In Australia at least, many providers offer different types of access (e.g. cable, DSL, 4G wireless), making some of the results less than meaningful.

  23. Okay, but what does it mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I looked at the report for my home computer, and I cannot fathom what it means. The Google report fails at communicating anything.
    Above the report, (which is a graph) there is some text including: "including your choice of Internet Service Provider..." As if I had a choice. Well I dsl-extreme, which buys connections from local providers. But, my other "choice" I think is AT&T, or some other mega-dodo (prize for anyone who knows who first used that phrase!) Corp. that wants to bundle phone-laundry-internet-life-insurance and something else starting at 5 times the price of the damn dsl. That's the real issue.

  24. Working for a faster Internet. by fredan · · Score: 1

    Yeah, don't think so.

    (If I mentions TOECDN I'm going to get modded down, so I will not mentions TOECDN).

  25. Flying car wish by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    This is all nice and all (transferring some data from A to B without stuttering), but what about my flying car?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Flying car wish by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but pigs will fly before (Striped)Cow.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  26. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Went there, saw an incomprensible graph which might somehow be related to the topic at hand, but who the fuck knows. It looks like maybe it's a summary of how many people (probably at one ISP) watch videos, by differing qualities and time-of-day. And from that, we can infer .. what?

    I'm wondering if the premise is this: people are watching lower-res videos, it means they're having performance problems (i.e. higher res didn't work for them). If that's the premise then I think this information is nearly useless, since it's an obviously bullshit premise. You don't know why people chose lower-res nor what else they were using their connections for at the time they streamed. (That second part, BTW, is one of the reasons I think streaming is basically a dumb idea and a technological regression.)

  27. Duopoly by tepples · · Score: 1

    If people can't get their YouTube through Comcast, then Comcast is going to lose a lot of customers.

    To whom? Among the two wired broadband ISPs serving Fort Wayne, Indiana, Comcast was graded HD and Frontier was SD.

  28. Is an update a dupe? by tepples · · Score: 1

    By calling it an update. Previously, all I got was "check back soon"; now I get "Comcast rules, Frontier drools".

  29. Change Location by tepples · · Score: 1

    Your other option is the "Change Location" button. There's moving, and then there's moving United.

  30. Different subject matter by tepples · · Score: 1

    They make tons of money on their television services and paid video-on-demand services. Every second that you're watching Hulu, YouTube, or Netflix is a second that you're not watching their paid services.

    I watch YouTube because none of the major channels happen to show the subject matter in which I'm interested. So how should the fans of a particular web show go about getting that show added to "their paid services"?

  31. Where "check back soon" has gone away by tepples · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, each of these stories comes out when Google expands the set of locations that don't return "check back soon".

  32. How I read the graph by tepples · · Score: 0

    I think each segment corresponds to the number of attempts to view HD video over a given hour, divided into successful and unsuccessful attempts.

  33. bitrate by tepples · · Score: 1

    On QWERTY, "n" and "b" keys are adjacent. The word is "bitrate". Google already knows the bitrate of the video that a user is attempting to stream.

  34. Re:Grade is on the curve roxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Comcast's latest expansion is complete, I hope Google buys them out and kills that beast. Then they can buy Netflix and they will do their best to make us all happy customers. They will put in the ISP Netflix cache appliances. They want us all to be happy and it will make it so much easier to spy on us. With google as an ISP they can do deep packet inspections and not have to use web page beacons. Your attempts at using adblock, etc will be humorous to them. Comcast is the oppressor, Google is the liberator!! Long live Google!

  35. ISP malfeasance vs. low service tier by tepples · · Score: 1

    If a user's Internet service can't maintain a given bitrate, how can Google tell whether this is caused by ISP malfeasance or simply by the user choosing to subscribe to a less expensive tier of home Internet service? As it is, it appears to punish ISPs for offering less expensive tiers with slower speeds, such as the low-speed tier that Comcast offers to families with children that receive assistance under the National School Lunch Program.

  36. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It doesn't take in to account the net speeds that people have. So you might well have a provider who has no problem doing HD video from Youtube all day every day, on lines that can handle it. However they sell slower lines and some customers have that, so that skews things.

    Like say a phone company offers ADSL and IDSL for customers who are way out in the boonies, but VDSL for people in the city. Well those slow connections will bring down their stats, even if their network is quite fast and makes them look bad, despite them actually being the only option for some people.

    A somewhat similar deal with cable companies can be people using old hardware. DOCSIS 2 cable modems only use one channel per segment, and those can get saturated these days. Well cable providers tend to be DOCSIS 3 to deal with that... but not everyone has a new modem. The cable company can recommend they get one, but if it is your equipment they can't make you (I guess other than cutting you off but they don't wanna do that).

  37. I guess by gizmo2199 · · Score: 1

    the internet is a series of tubes after all. And data packets are gumballs.

    --
    This Sig does not Exist.