4 ms·

Good. I swear youtube is throttled by Time Warner Cable for me. I stream Netflix, Hulu, etc and never have problems with them. I can confirm that I'm getting my

by earlz 13y ago

Good. I swear youtube is throttled by Time Warner Cable for me. I stream Netflix, Hulu, etc and never have problems with them. I can confirm that I'm getting my speeds of 20MBit/s down, and yet almost every video on YouTube buffers. If I use youtube-dl to download the video, I can confirm that my actual connection speed is somewhere around 60KB/s. If I then use youtube-dl on my VPS with the same video, I get somewhere between 2MB/s and 8MB/s.

kyle_t 13y ago
^this. Same with Netflix though for me. Where are you based? I'm in Austin, Tx. Any of the speed tests online will report 30mbps/5mbps, but I'm unable to stream HD on Youtube or Netflix during peak times.
- earlz 13y ago
  I'm in Cleveland, OH. Like I said, never have problems with other services like Netflix or even streaming videos by vimeo or skydrive, just Youtube. It's so frustrating I've considered setting up a network-wide VPN for my home network to get around it
- fsckin 13y ago
  Same for me on Time Warner in Austin. I can't wait for Google Fiber to roll into town.
- jerf 13y ago
  At peak times it isn't out of the question that the video service itself is a bit under the weather. I've had some troubles with Amazon at peak time, and it's always been with fresh content, such as yesterday's television show that just became available on Amazon four hours ago. It wasn't obviously my network, as switching over to Netflix worked just fine at full quality. (That's not a proof it's not still somehow network related, but it strongly suggests it wasn't my ISP.)
- math0ne 13y ago
  I'd be happy if my TWC in Austin would just stay up. I've had many techs out and the service goes down daily for sometimes hours at a time. ugh...
rdudek 13y ago
I think Comcast is doing the same thing here in Colorado. Lately, I've been seeing quality drop in videos where it shouldn't. Running speed tests or downloading from newsgroups I'm hitting 60mbps.
- smokinn 13y ago
  Same here for Comcast in Seattle. From 6-8pm I can't stream youtube on anything more than 360p or it buffers constantly. Other video streaming services seem to stream fine (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video) and speedtest.net reports 56Mbps down, it's just youtube that suffers.
- semerda 13y ago
  Ditto here re Comcast, but in Mountain View. I am a stone throw away from YouTube HQ and still get bad performance. Tried the 8.8.8.8 DNS and not much different. Comcast is definitely squeezing the pipes!
- aroch 13y ago
  You'll be happy to know that Comcast's Denver ibone switching/routing has been over capacity for many months at this point...Same goes for their Oregon switches (which service SV and the PNW seaboard)
  - mey 13y ago
    http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/results/usa/graph http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/results/usa/graph Looking at comcast over the last two months looks like there is some data to confirm your notes about their backbone having issues. They are on a steady decline.
b3b0p 13y ago
Same thing happened to me with AT&T in Tulsa with their fastest offering (I think it was 24/3 at the time). All speed tests, downloads, uploads were almost always the advertised speeds, but I couldn't watch Netflix or HBO GO, or Hulu. I could, but it was unbearable. To the point of kicking over magazine stands and throwing Nintendo controllers at the TV. When I called support about this they claimed it was my setup. A Time Capsule connected to their modem/router. Whatever. I switched to Cox (100/25) and get better than advertised speeds in all downloads, uploads, and speed tests, and have not had a single issue with buffering on any service. I have even been choosing the 1080p option on YouTube without any buffering. The only problem I have now is whenever my Time Capsule is directly connected to my Motorola modem it causes the modem to restart, so I had to use a slower, older Linksys in-between the two until I figure out what's the cause of that.
- digikata 13y ago
  Similar prob with AT&T in SoCal, bad Netflix, Youtube, and actually, almost all large file transfers of any kind, including linux isos, apple dmgs & system updates, etc. Switched to an independent ISP carried over the same AT&T DSL lines and I could actually get the advertised bandwidth consistently. I suspect the only reason DSL is accessible by third-party ISP is that it carries some regulatory access rules with it because only U-Verse can get to the higher tiers of bandwidth. My broadband choices are lower speeds with third-party DSL 6Mbps, or higher speeds with AT&T U-Verse, or TWC both of which seem to selectively throttle competing video services like YouTube or Netflix.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
Yup. This article is a not so subtle jab at this and trying to educate consumers that their poor video experience isn't Google's fault. Both Google and Netflix are raising the bar here, customer demand/complaints are providing the necessary energy and the ISPs are maneuvering to get more money out of someone.
emehrkay 13y ago
I feel like Verizon Fios does the same. I have 50 down and YouTube is painful most times
jdminhbg 13y ago
Are you by any chance using non-TWC DNS servers? I had this same frustrating problem on Comcast, and it turned out that their CDN works by using DNS to direct you to local servers; by using the Google 8.8.8.8 etc I wasn't getting that. Even still, though, I run into certain Youtube videos that absolutely refuse to ever fully load -- it's always non-popular ones, and it's like they cache miss and just never get surfaced for me to watch the whole way through.
- trevyn 13y ago
  Have had the same experience on Comcast.
- earlz 13y ago
  I am using different nameservers, but I've tried switching to the default nameservers and nothing appeared to change at the time, maybe I'll have to try it again
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > it turned out that their CDN works by using DNS to direct you to local servers Are these servers' IPs static? Can they be hardcoded in your hosts file?
  - philsnow 13y ago
    I use TomatoUSB on my home router, which includes dnsmasq (under Advanced / DHCP/DNS, there's a textarea for "Dnsmasq custom configuration"). I have a line in there: server=/netflix.com/75.75.75.75 which tells dnsmasq to use my ISP's dns (75.75.75.75) instead of my default (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4), only when resolving domains that look like netflix.com. I don't actually know whether this is an anchored regex or what, maybe I'm spuriously using my ISP's dns for foonetflix.combar.info, but I don't really care. All devices that use DHCP use the router (and thus the custom dnsmasq config) for dns by default. It improved my ability to stream netflix at the time, though I didn't measure it. TomatoUSB has neat-looking graphs, maybe I should run a test. Edit as to your question: > Are these servers' IPs static? Can they be hardcoded in your hosts file? I suspect they use AWS for at least some layer in between you and the bits you want (if not the actual CDN, the server pool that generates the token that you need to get the bits from the CDN), so I don't think there would be a set of IP addresses to hard-code.
morrad 13y ago
I have TWC and have had a lot of success in speeding up Youtube by blocking access to the caching servers that TWC uses. If I block 206.111.0.0/16, I can stream at full speed. See: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/13kmvd/have_time_warner_internet_but_can_barely_stream/ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/13kmvd/have_time...
- earlz 13y ago
  I tried blocking some of the relevant IP ranges, but it seemed like it wouldn't fallback or something. Instead of getting perfect streaming quality, I would not be able to load the youtube video at all
sudomal 13y ago
AFAIK ISPs have special hardware from/for these big streaming services to efficiently handle the traffic. Every-so-often that peering/mirroring equipment cannot support the demand and they have to upgrade the capacity.
higherpurpose 13y ago
They probably do it, but Google is at fault, too. Their new DASH thing has made the experience so much poorer. They never should've done it to begin with, and I don't think whatever savings in bandwidth they might have from it are worth the compromise. Youtube was perfect before, because it allowed you to cache videos, and go back on the videos whenever you wanted, with no need for reloading or whatever. DASH made it a much worse experience, at it only caches like a few seconds at most in front of the streaming, and it won't even allow you to go back in the video without reloading it again.
- rhizome 13y ago
  All of that is required by their advertising business model. The more YouTube emulates the pre-VCR TV world, the more they can charge for time and visibility.
- sumedh 13y ago
  > because it allowed you to cache videos, Youtube has to pay for that bandwidth usage even if you dont watch the cached video later.
  - christianmann 13y ago
    > go back in the video whenever you wanted without reloading That's even more bandwidth that they have to pay for unnecessarily.
- username223 13y ago
  I wouldn't know. YouTube is actually not so bad now if you block Flash, save the videos via the HTML5 interface, and watch them at your leisure.
erichocean 13y ago
I wonder if proxying just those sites through a $5/month Digital Ocean server would work...
- cma 13y ago
  Worked for me when I had streaming problems with AT&T, but AWS micro was the cheapest at the time.
reedlaw 13y ago
Same here! Youtube is faster for me from China through a VPN connection than in the US via Time Warner.
throwaway2201 13y ago
I'm really surprised nobody's mentioned peering/transit in this thread. Ars has a good set of write-ups on this topic, the latest being http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-youtube-buffers-the-secret-deals-that-make-and-break-online-video/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-yo... Whether it's the fault of (1) the residential ISPs for letting their ports run so hot, or (2) the transit providers for trying to stiff them on pricing for additional capacity, or (3) the content provider for choosing a cheap upstream who is known to engage in this activity is up for debate! As someone else noted on another thread, it's remarkable how often the name 'Cogent' comes up in these kinds of issues...

by earlz 13y ago

kyle_t 13y ago

^this. Same with Netflix though for me. Where are you based? I'm in Austin, Tx. Any of the speed tests online will report 30mbps/5mbps, but I'm unable to stream HD on Youtube or Netflix during peak times.

earlz 13y ago
I'm in Cleveland, OH. Like I said, never have problems with other services like Netflix or even streaming videos by vimeo or skydrive, just Youtube. It's so frustrating I've considered setting up a network-wide VPN for my home network to get around it
fsckin 13y ago
Same for me on Time Warner in Austin. I can't wait for Google Fiber to roll into town.
jerf 13y ago
At peak times it isn't out of the question that the video service itself is a bit under the weather. I've had some troubles with Amazon at peak time, and it's always been with fresh content, such as yesterday's television show that just became available on Amazon four hours ago. It wasn't obviously my network, as switching over to Netflix worked just fine at full quality. (That's not a proof it's not still somehow network related, but it strongly suggests it wasn't my ISP.)
math0ne 13y ago
I'd be happy if my TWC in Austin would just stay up. I've had many techs out and the service goes down daily for sometimes hours at a time. ugh...

rdudek 13y ago

I think Comcast is doing the same thing here in Colorado. Lately, I've been seeing quality drop in videos where it shouldn't. Running speed tests or downloading from newsgroups I'm hitting 60mbps.

smokinn 13y ago
Same here for Comcast in Seattle. From 6-8pm I can't stream youtube on anything more than 360p or it buffers constantly. Other video streaming services seem to stream fine (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant Video) and speedtest.net reports 56Mbps down, it's just youtube that suffers.
semerda 13y ago
Ditto here re Comcast, but in Mountain View. I am a stone throw away from YouTube HQ and still get bad performance. Tried the 8.8.8.8 DNS and not much different. Comcast is definitely squeezing the pipes!
aroch 13y ago
You'll be happy to know that Comcast's Denver ibone switching/routing has been over capacity for many months at this point...Same goes for their Oregon switches (which service SV and the PNW seaboard)
- mey 13y ago
  http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/results/usa/graph http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/results/usa/graph Looking at comcast over the last two months looks like there is some data to confirm your notes about their backbone having issues. They are on a steady decline.

b3b0p 13y ago

Same thing happened to me with AT&T in Tulsa with their fastest offering (I think it was 24/3 at the time). All speed tests, downloads, uploads were almost always the advertised speeds, but I couldn't watch Netflix or HBO GO, or Hulu. I could, but it was unbearable. To the point of kicking over magazine stands and throwing Nintendo controllers at the TV. When I called support about this they claimed it was my setup. A Time Capsule connected to their modem/router. Whatever. I switched to Cox (100/25) and get better than advertised speeds in all downloads, uploads, and speed tests, and have not had a single issue with buffering on any service. I have even been choosing the 1080p option on YouTube without any buffering. The only problem I have now is whenever my Time Capsule is directly connected to my Motorola modem it causes the modem to restart, so I had to use a slower, older Linksys in-between the two until I figure out what's the cause of that.

digikata 13y ago
Similar prob with AT&T in SoCal, bad Netflix, Youtube, and actually, almost all large file transfers of any kind, including linux isos, apple dmgs & system updates, etc. Switched to an independent ISP carried over the same AT&T DSL lines and I could actually get the advertised bandwidth consistently. I suspect the only reason DSL is accessible by third-party ISP is that it carries some regulatory access rules with it because only U-Verse can get to the higher tiers of bandwidth. My broadband choices are lower speeds with third-party DSL 6Mbps, or higher speeds with AT&T U-Verse, or TWC both of which seem to selectively throttle competing video services like YouTube or Netflix.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Yup. This article is a not so subtle jab at this and trying to educate consumers that their poor video experience isn't Google's fault. Both Google and Netflix are raising the bar here, customer demand/complaints are providing the necessary energy and the ISPs are maneuvering to get more money out of someone.

emehrkay 13y ago

I feel like Verizon Fios does the same. I have 50 down and YouTube is painful most times

jdminhbg 13y ago

Are you by any chance using non-TWC DNS servers? I had this same frustrating problem on Comcast, and it turned out that their CDN works by using DNS to direct you to local servers; by using the Google 8.8.8.8 etc I wasn't getting that. Even still, though, I run into certain Youtube videos that absolutely refuse to ever fully load -- it's always non-popular ones, and it's like they cache miss and just never get surfaced for me to watch the whole way through.

trevyn 13y ago
Have had the same experience on Comcast.
earlz 13y ago
I am using different nameservers, but I've tried switching to the default nameservers and nothing appeared to change at the time, maybe I'll have to try it again
w1ntermute 13y ago
> it turned out that their CDN works by using DNS to direct you to local servers Are these servers' IPs static? Can they be hardcoded in your hosts file?
- philsnow 13y ago
  I use TomatoUSB on my home router, which includes dnsmasq (under Advanced / DHCP/DNS, there's a textarea for "Dnsmasq custom configuration"). I have a line in there: server=/netflix.com/75.75.75.75 which tells dnsmasq to use my ISP's dns (75.75.75.75) instead of my default (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4), only when resolving domains that look like netflix.com. I don't actually know whether this is an anchored regex or what, maybe I'm spuriously using my ISP's dns for foonetflix.combar.info, but I don't really care. All devices that use DHCP use the router (and thus the custom dnsmasq config) for dns by default. It improved my ability to stream netflix at the time, though I didn't measure it. TomatoUSB has neat-looking graphs, maybe I should run a test. Edit as to your question: > Are these servers' IPs static? Can they be hardcoded in your hosts file? I suspect they use AWS for at least some layer in between you and the bits you want (if not the actual CDN, the server pool that generates the token that you need to get the bits from the CDN), so I don't think there would be a set of IP addresses to hard-code.

morrad 13y ago

I have TWC and have had a lot of success in speeding up Youtube by blocking access to the caching servers that TWC uses. If I block 206.111.0.0/16, I can stream at full speed. See: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/13kmvd/have_time_warner_internet_but_can_barely_stream/ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/13kmvd/have_time...

earlz 13y ago
I tried blocking some of the relevant IP ranges, but it seemed like it wouldn't fallback or something. Instead of getting perfect streaming quality, I would not be able to load the youtube video at all

sudomal 13y ago

AFAIK ISPs have special hardware from/for these big streaming services to efficiently handle the traffic. Every-so-often that peering/mirroring equipment cannot support the demand and they have to upgrade the capacity.

higherpurpose 13y ago

They probably do it, but Google is at fault, too. Their new DASH thing has made the experience so much poorer. They never should've done it to begin with, and I don't think whatever savings in bandwidth they might have from it are worth the compromise. Youtube was perfect before, because it allowed you to cache videos, and go back on the videos whenever you wanted, with no need for reloading or whatever. DASH made it a much worse experience, at it only caches like a few seconds at most in front of the streaming, and it won't even allow you to go back in the video without reloading it again.

rhizome 13y ago
All of that is required by their advertising business model. The more YouTube emulates the pre-VCR TV world, the more they can charge for time and visibility.
sumedh 13y ago
> because it allowed you to cache videos, Youtube has to pay for that bandwidth usage even if you dont watch the cached video later.
- christianmann 13y ago
  > go back in the video whenever you wanted without reloading That's even more bandwidth that they have to pay for unnecessarily.
username223 13y ago
I wouldn't know. YouTube is actually not so bad now if you block Flash, save the videos via the HTML5 interface, and watch them at your leisure.

erichocean 13y ago

I wonder if proxying just those sites through a $5/month Digital Ocean server would work...

cma 13y ago
Worked for me when I had streaming problems with AT&T, but AWS micro was the cheapest at the time.

reedlaw 13y ago

Same here! Youtube is faster for me from China through a VPN connection than in the US via Time Warner.

throwaway2201 13y ago

I'm really surprised nobody's mentioned peering/transit in this thread. Ars has a good set of write-ups on this topic, the latest being http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-youtube-buffers-the-secret-deals-that-make-and-break-online-video/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/why-yo... Whether it's the fault of (1) the residential ISPs for letting their ports run so hot, or (2) the transit providers for trying to stiff them on pricing for additional capacity, or (3) the content provider for choosing a cheap upstream who is known to engage in this activity is up for debate! As someone else noted on another thread, it's remarkable how often the name 'Cogent' comes up in these kinds of issues...