Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Video Quality Report

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 175 posts

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#131

Post by zackmorris »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #119

Now that it's fully legal for ISPs to throttle Netflix, Google, et al (thanks, Verizon) and extort money from them in return for giving customers the bandwidth they pay for, I think it's time for all the major players to track performance on the networks and call out the throttlers with a message right over the video stream on their website and in-app (Android, iOS, Xbox, etc). SO, when you use TWC and are getting on…

Also net neutrality was a key barrier to ad hoc and distributed/self organizing networks. Once people perceive that they are not guaranteed to get what they paid for, there will be a race to the bottom to find alternatives. The ISPs killed the goose that laid the golden egg and don't even know it yet.

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#133

Post by kd0amg »

stakecounter wrote: post #70

I was really hoping this was going to address the seeking problem. It seems like whenever I want to seek, even backwards to already buffered content, there's a 50/50 chance the video player will stop working entirely and force me to do a refresh and lose my entire video buffer.

The past few times I've had this happen, refreshing the page just dropped me right where I'd left off before trying to seek backwards.

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#134

Post by packetslave »

Geee wrote: post #90
Geee wrote: post #45

Google, would you please stop making these pretty advertisements and actually fix the problems? Thanks, Internet.

Wow, angry googlers strike again ;)

or maybe you just have no clue about what "the problems" actually are, and who needs to fix them.

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#135

Post by nForce »

For Google to build their own fibre optic networks, that will be able to accommodate a lot of the USA and Europe, what's the costs/difficulties?

I am aware they were trialling some sort of netwrok locally to CA, how difficult/expensive is it to roll this out worldwide?

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#136

Post by guelo »

zackmorris wrote: post #131
JohnTHaller wrote: post #119

Now that it's fully legal for ISPs to throttle Netflix, Google, et al (thanks, Verizon) and extort money from them in return for giving customers the bandwidth they pay for, I think it's time for all the major players to track performance on the networks and call out the throttlers with a message right over the video stream on their website and in-app (Android, iOS, Xbox, etc). SO, when you use TWC and are getting on…

Also net neutrality was a key barrier to ad hoc and distributed/self organizing networks. Once people perceive that they are not guaranteed to get what they paid for, there will be a race to the bottom to find alternatives. The ISPs killed the goose that laid the golden egg and don't even know it yet.

This doesn't ring true.

Mesh-type networks fail for many reasons. Mainly, nobody seems to have found a good use for them, especially with everybody walking around with 4G hotspots nowadays. Seems very doubtful that the FCC would have gotten involved regulating some fledgling community network.

Can you provide any evidence that an adhoc network was ever regulated under network neutrality rules?

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#137

Post by sentenza »

YES! Deutsche Telekom needs a public shaming. They are the former state monopolist in Germany and use their large customer base als bargaining chip, refusing to peer at internet exchanges and so on.

Needless to say that YouTube loading speeds have been sub-par with that ISP.

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#138

Post by enneff »

ihsw wrote: post #22
atonse wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the actual requirements they're talking about, they aren't that crazy. Even for HD video, they're talking > 2.5Mbps. So for really good quality, it's probably 5-6Mbps. I have 85Mbps FiOS at home, and I still sometimes have issues streaming Youtube videos. If my ISP can't even guarantee 10% of what I'm paying for over a fiber optic line, then yes, they need to be called out and publicly shamed.

What about if youtube.com's CDNs are overloaded and slow? Will you blame your ISP? This is the problem with such ratings systems -- they're inherently one-sided.

Why would this be the case? It is only in Google's best interests to provide the best streaming service possible. It's not like they have any shortage of servers, bandwidth, or funds with which to do so.

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#139

Post by 10feet »

cydonian_monk wrote: post #85

Curious. For me the 30-240 seconds long ads YouTube shows are always 1080p (or at very least high quality) and never choppy, yet streaming YouTube content videos at the same resolution often results in terrible buffering issues. Are the crappy ISP (ComCast) cahce servers only caching the non-ad videos? Does YouTube serve these through an AdSense / non-YouTube source that bypasses the cache? There are times it seems t…

How many ads do you think there are, and how many videos? 100 different ads, and about a billion videos people are interested in watching.

Re: Google Video Quality Report

#140

Post by Aloisius »

gman99 wrote: post #103
huytoan_pc wrote: post #75

Anybody knows why recently Youtube re-buffers every video when I hit replay? It might make sense for long videos but for relative short videos (music videos and the like), it's really frustrating.

It's because Youtube uses DASH[1] by default now. It's also the reason why it never buffers more than a few seconds of video anymore. I installed YoutubeCenter[2] and disabled DASH from the options and it seems to work well every since. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_ove... [2] https://github.com/YePpHa/YouTubeCenter

Does DASH actually require you not to utilize the browser cache for some reason? It seems to me that all you have to do is keep the request URLs around that you previously requested and perhaps the byte range that you fetched if you abort and the browser should be able to pull it straight from the cache. No?

Of course you'd get the same quality as the previous play, but with a little work you could splice in some higher quality segments if you wanted.

Post reply on HN