5 ms·

I keep thinking I see this on my wired (Comcast) connection too. Stuff just behaves too strangely for it to be anything else. One video provider will get slow

I keep thinking I see this on my wired (Comcast) connection too. Stuff just behaves too strangely for it to be anything else. One video provider will get slow. Switch to the mobile connection and it's fine. Switch to another site on the wired connection, that's fine too. They've made it perfectly clear they're unhappy I won't pay them an extra $100+/month for 900 channels of crap over and over.

devoply 7y ago
> They've made it perfectly clear they're unhappy I won't pay them an extra $100+/month for 900 channels of crap over and over. CEO: You know how we solve this, offer them more channels at a premium price. Which will show them 1 or maybe 2 shows they want to see.
checktheorder 7y ago
Same phenomenon for me in southern Ontario. My ISP (Start.ca) is using Rogers' infrastructure. Evenings equal poor streaming video performance on all sites despite an otherwise-perfect connection. If I connect to a VPN, video performance mysteriously improves instantly. If I were of a suspicious mind, I'd wonder if Rogers is pulling some backend shenanigans to discourage cord-cutting.
- jedberg 7y ago
  See my sibling comment for a possible explanation.
jedberg 7y ago
This is your ISP being sneaky, but probably not in the way you think. This is what Netflix has been complaining about for years. Your ISP is purposely providing a too-small link to your video provider. So when a lot of people are using that provider, it gets slow. When you switch to another provider, or a VPN, you get to use a fast connection to that other VPN that isn't overloaded, and then a fast connection back to your video provider. This way your ISP can claim they are not throttling traffic because they aren't inspecting the packets for traffic shaping, they are just using physically poor connectivity to certain providers for traffic shaping.
- briffle 7y ago
  Not to mention, they can now go and ask that provider to pay them for the right to 'upgrade' their connection, to enable their customers to get what they are paying the ISP for.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Yup, and in Comcast's case, when Netflix finally paid Comcast's ransom, the problem was suddenly fixed a few minutes later, because Comcast literally just had to reconfigure the router and plug in a second cable.
    - jerkstate 7y ago
      In those days it was typical for the costs of peering to be borne by the sender, relative to the traffic ratio. This changed when Netflix and Youtube decided to use their PR and lobbying strength to bring the negotiation to the court of public opinion - and normal people started referring to typical peering cost-sharing agreements using emotionally loaded words like "ransom"
      - jrockway 7y ago
        Peering has traditionally been free.
        jerkstate 7y ago
        Subject to ratio requirements. Go have a look at peeringdb - there is a field for "Ratio Requirement" and it is common for that field to be "Yes"
        jrockway 7y ago
        Yeah, but these consumer ISPs self-inflicted the ratio imbalance. They literally don't let their customers upload at the same speed they download at; of course their peering ratios are going to be imbalanced. I checked several of the largest ASNs and several smaller NYC-area ISPs on peeringdb and they are all "No" to the ratio requirement. Google doesn't care. Amazon doesn't care. Cloudflare doesn't care. There's half the Internet. Demanding money to peer with Netflix is just trying to charge customers twice because they can. It's not normal, conventional, or good for the Internet. Netflix might be able to pay, but will your startup be able to pay? Probably not. And that's not the future we want.
mtgx 7y ago
It's been happening for some time now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-28/comcast-draws-customer-ire-by-putting-netflix-addicts-on-a-meter https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-28/comcast-d...

devoply 7y ago

> They've made it perfectly clear they're unhappy I won't pay them an extra $100+/month for 900 channels of crap over and over. CEO: You know how we solve this, offer them more channels at a premium price. Which will show them 1 or maybe 2 shows they want to see.

checktheorder 7y ago

Same phenomenon for me in southern Ontario. My ISP (Start.ca) is using Rogers' infrastructure. Evenings equal poor streaming video performance on all sites despite an otherwise-perfect connection. If I connect to a VPN, video performance mysteriously improves instantly. If I were of a suspicious mind, I'd wonder if Rogers is pulling some backend shenanigans to discourage cord-cutting.

jedberg 7y ago
See my sibling comment for a possible explanation.

jedberg 7y ago

This is your ISP being sneaky, but probably not in the way you think. This is what Netflix has been complaining about for years. Your ISP is purposely providing a too-small link to your video provider. So when a lot of people are using that provider, it gets slow. When you switch to another provider, or a VPN, you get to use a fast connection to that other VPN that isn't overloaded, and then a fast connection back to your video provider. This way your ISP can claim they are not throttling traffic because they aren't inspecting the packets for traffic shaping, they are just using physically poor connectivity to certain providers for traffic shaping.

briffle 7y ago
Not to mention, they can now go and ask that provider to pay them for the right to 'upgrade' their connection, to enable their customers to get what they are paying the ISP for.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Yup, and in Comcast's case, when Netflix finally paid Comcast's ransom, the problem was suddenly fixed a few minutes later, because Comcast literally just had to reconfigure the router and plug in a second cable.
  - jerkstate 7y ago
    In those days it was typical for the costs of peering to be borne by the sender, relative to the traffic ratio. This changed when Netflix and Youtube decided to use their PR and lobbying strength to bring the negotiation to the court of public opinion - and normal people started referring to typical peering cost-sharing agreements using emotionally loaded words like "ransom"
    - jrockway 7y ago
      Peering has traditionally been free.
      - jerkstate 7y ago
        Subject to ratio requirements. Go have a look at peeringdb - there is a field for "Ratio Requirement" and it is common for that field to be "Yes"
        jrockway 7y ago
        Yeah, but these consumer ISPs self-inflicted the ratio imbalance. They literally don't let their customers upload at the same speed they download at; of course their peering ratios are going to be imbalanced. I checked several of the largest ASNs and several smaller NYC-area ISPs on peeringdb and they are all "No" to the ratio requirement. Google doesn't care. Amazon doesn't care. Cloudflare doesn't care. There's half the Internet. Demanding money to peer with Netflix is just trying to charge customers twice because they can. It's not normal, conventional, or good for the Internet. Netflix might be able to pay, but will your startup be able to pay? Probably not. And that's not the future we want.

mtgx 7y ago

It's been happening for some time now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-28/comcast-draws-customer-ire-by-putting-netflix-addicts-on-a-meter https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-28/comcast-d...