I'm retracting my apology. None of those links seem to offer any conclusive evidence that Verizon FiOS is throttling YouTube.
I waded through pages and pages and pages of technologically illiterate incompetents complaining that their computers don't work, and didn't find any of this evidence of which you speak.
LMGTFY links only work when the answer is indeed obvious. This one isn't. I'm calling you out. Real links next time.
I have spare mod points. If you want me to use them to hide this post from the rest of the world, it's going to cost you. I accept Pay-Pal. E-mail me for details.
((Slashdot took a dump this afternoon and new comments stopped appearing for like, nearly an hour.))
Verizon is guilty of extortion. They are holding the user hostage, and forcing google to pay up to protect their brand.
Meanwhile, the FIOS subscriber, such as myself, finally have an answer as to why Youtube hasnt fucking worked for a year now.
Verizon FIOS... has just lost its sainthood.
If you value youtube, and use it... Do not subscribe to Verizon FIOS.
Is this true? Can somebody verify this?
I am currently a FiOS subscriber, and I too have had significant bandwidth and buffer issues, particularly in HD, even at the mere 720p level. The 1080p level is outright unusable. Which never made any sense to me, given the bandwidth numbers that I'm allegedly paying for.
I'll be canceling my FiOS subscription immediately if this is true.
At first, I was momentarily shocked that I wasn't the only one that caught that, until I remembered this is a website full of CompSci's and pretty much all we do is hunt down off-by-one-bugs.
At one point, there was an article, titled "Facebook Wants To Be Your One True Login". It, at one point, became the top Google search result for: "facebook login", thus changing the behavior of Firefox's Awesomebar for the command: "facebook login". The article is here. Skip directly to the comments.
2/3rds of people who have and use an internet connection. Children don't count, people without their own internet access don't count.
Of course, the only people with a reasonable opinion about how governments should operate on the internet are the selfsame people who haven't had their worldview tarnished by an internet connection.
Not to belittle what Microsoft did, but in the interest if giving credit where credit is due:
Here’s the problem with Battle.net 2.0: 2002s Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos is one of the most underrated video games ever created. And that’s before you learn its online apparatus is the foundation for modern matchmaking, where Blizzard Entertainment should get royalties every time you brag about your X-Box Live Trueskill rating. (Then again, I shouldn’t be giving Blizzard ideas right now.)
Here’s how Warcraft III matchmaking worked: Everyone starts at level one. The maximum level is fifty. You play players within six levels of your own. Win five games, gain a level. Lose five games, lose a level. The penalty for losing is reduced during levels one to nine. Thus, players who win half their games will become level ten.
It was simple and transparent. That was the hook, and people choked on it. It turned Warcraft III ladder play into what ICCUP serves for Starcraft players, a stomping ground so competitive that climbing the food chain gave you a shot at the guys who played for a living. That’s what a good online gaming system does.
No, that part is real. I'm more doubtful about the part where Issac Newton runs around the countryside dueling rats, shooting them with pistols, to level up, while Cambridge wastes 22 years failing to attach bayonets to their rifles.
I can see RAM-less computers for work / word processing / PowerPoint, but I do not forsee RAM-less computers for computationally intensive work or 3D gaming. Not within our lifetimes.
If you wish to visit the White House and are a citizen of a foreign country, please contact your embassy in Washington, DC for assistance in submitting a tour request.
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and we'll have our president announce that you can have a pony on August 31st and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, no, c'mon guys.
I was specifically only talking about Youtube.
Not just you. I'm also talking to the other guy who asked me if my wireless router was properly configured. Hint: I have no wireless router.
I'm from Jersey, and the problem is cars older than '98 with Pennsylvania plates.
I'm retracting my apology. None of those links seem to offer any conclusive evidence that Verizon FiOS is throttling YouTube.
I waded through pages and pages and pages of technologically illiterate incompetents complaining that their computers don't work, and didn't find any of this evidence of which you speak.
LMGTFY links only work when the answer is indeed obvious. This one isn't. I'm calling you out. Real links next time.
Okay, I guess I walked right into that one.
I have spare mod points. If you want me to use them to hide this post from the rest of the world, it's going to cost you. I accept Pay-Pal. E-mail me for details.
((Slashdot took a dump this afternoon and new comments stopped appearing for like, nearly an hour.))
Verizon is crippling Youtube bandwidth on FIOS.
Verizon is guilty of extortion. They are holding the user hostage, and forcing google to pay up to protect their brand.
Meanwhile, the FIOS subscriber, such as myself, finally have an answer as to why Youtube hasnt fucking worked for a year now.
Verizon FIOS... has just lost its sainthood.
If you value youtube, and use it... Do not subscribe to Verizon FIOS.
Is this true? Can somebody verify this?
I am currently a FiOS subscriber, and I too have had significant bandwidth and buffer issues, particularly in HD, even at the mere 720p level. The 1080p level is outright unusable. Which never made any sense to me, given the bandwidth numbers that I'm allegedly paying for.
I'll be canceling my FiOS subscription immediately if this is true.
At first, I was momentarily shocked that I wasn't the only one that caught that, until I remembered this is a website full of CompSci's and pretty much all we do is hunt down off-by-one-bugs.
As always, 98% of people won't have a clue what it does or how it works, and will install it because someone tells them to.
After that, it's wide acceptance will be cited as a justification for it's existence.
Jeez. Sounds like a certain operating system I know.
I sea what you did there.
At one point, there was an article, titled "Facebook Wants To Be Your One True Login". It, at one point, became the top Google search result for: "facebook login", thus changing the behavior of Firefox's Awesomebar for the command: "facebook login". The article is here. Skip directly to the comments.
... but the former is the fancy rhetoric that gets draconian bills like the Patriot act passed.
You mean the latter, not the former.
No, it's the inequality in distribution of resources that causes the problem.
Nah, even if they were equally distributed we'd still need to take them from each other.
2/3rds of people who have and use an internet connection. Children don't count, people without their own internet access don't count.
Of course, the only people with a reasonable opinion about how governments should operate on the internet are the selfsame people who haven't had their worldview tarnished by an internet connection.
And children.
Here’s the problem with Battle.net 2.0: 2002s Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos is one of the most underrated video games ever created. And that’s before you learn its online apparatus is the foundation for modern matchmaking, where Blizzard Entertainment should get royalties every time you brag about your X-Box Live Trueskill rating. (Then again, I shouldn’t be giving Blizzard ideas right now.)
Here’s how Warcraft III matchmaking worked: Everyone starts at level one. The maximum level is fifty. You play players within six levels of your own. Win five games, gain a level. Lose five games, lose a level. The penalty for losing is reduced during levels one to nine. Thus, players who win half their games will become level ten.
It was simple and transparent. That was the hook, and people choked on it. It turned Warcraft III ladder play into what ICCUP serves for Starcraft players, a stomping ground so competitive that climbing the food chain gave you a shot at the guys who played for a living. That’s what a good online gaming system does.
The quote comes from Battle.net 2.0: The Antithesis of Consumer Confidence. I would encourage you to read the entire thing, but for reasons completely unrelated to this thread.
This is exactly what I was planning on saying as I read the comments, but you said it better.
Does this mean an AMD Dell is on the horizon? Oh my.
While I always build my own computers, this could herald a huge increase in funding for AMD's research.
No, that part is real. I'm more doubtful about the part where Issac Newton runs around the countryside dueling rats, shooting them with pistols, to level up, while Cambridge wastes 22 years failing to attach bayonets to their rifles.
If you portrait current day war you have a responsibility to do it at least somewhat accurately.
What about games like the Total War series, that portray a real historical environment in a way that lets you write any history you want?
I can see RAM-less computers for work / word processing / PowerPoint, but I do not forsee RAM-less computers for computationally intensive work or 3D gaming. Not within our lifetimes.
Marry me. No homo.
... Wikipedia is pretending to "be" the FBI ...
I keep trying to tell everyone that, but they keep reverting my edits.
If you wish to visit the White House and are a citizen of a foreign country, please contact your embassy in Washington, DC for assistance in submitting a tour request.
No, no, no, it goes like this:
I don't know, but the solution is simple enough. If Congress represented us, they'd say: "Oh, I see what you're saying. You can afford to worry about this because you don't have enough real criminals to catch. Gotcha. This is good news! It means we will cut your budget by 1/3 and we'll have our president announce that you can have a pony on August 31st and after one year we'll re-evaluate how this affects your choice of priorities. Who said federal bureaus can't learn to be more efficient?"
The current direction of this discussion has the potential to induce a pun-migraine. electron! Whew.
FTFY