There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming • Hacker News Board

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#41

Post by angersock » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

codezero wrote: post #33

coffeedrinker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix is unwatchable during prime time where I live. However, I have also noted that on two separate occasions when I began examining the Frontier FIOS site, I received a personal knock on my door from my local Comcast representative. Wondering if there was a connection to my search for another provider and the person at my door, I asked her if she was talking to everyone in the neighborhood or just me. It was just…

And maybe stop monitoring your personal searches, right?

Yeah, that's creepy as fuck.

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#42

Post by maratd » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 7:36 PM UTC

AJ007 wrote: post #37

No one has pointed out that this is bad for the providers throttling traffic. If Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T want their names to be associated with budget brands then its ok. Customers accept poor quality when the price is really low and there is no lock in (pre-paid mobile phone service.) Good luck getting those people to purchase premium services from you years in to the future. On Hacker News we complain a lot…

> If Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T want their names to be associated with budget brands then its ok.

It is definitely not OK. Time Warner is absolute garbage and has been for a very long time. Cablevision has an excellent network.

I know this very well.

Unfortunately, some towns contracted with Time Warner and some with Cablevision and you can't pick who you want as your provider ... unless you decide on where you live based on the available ISP.

As much as I love a good connection, I will not make my decision on where to live based on the available internet provider. Reputation is worthless unless people have a choice.

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#43

Post by zokier » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 7:46 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #38

nitrogen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my area, Comcast runs its own Speedtest.net server to hide the fact that the closest peering point that leads back to the same state is a few thousand miles away and is insanely oversubscribed. If Speedtest had more integrity, ISP-owned servers would be deprioritized.

Not just that, Ookla /actively partners/ with the ISPs. Comcast's site is actually at speedtest.comcast.net. There's a financial dis-incentive for them to do so.

Of course this is not all that dishonest. It is just a matter of what you want to measure. For last-mile speed measurement (which is what I personally use speedtest.net most for) using ISP provided local servers makes a lot of sense because it also removes most external factors from the measurement.

And really there is no "central point of Internet" which to measure speed to/from.

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#44

Post by zokier » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

jcampbell1 wrote: post #30

incision wrote: post #16

Reminds me of the Comcast situation with Bitorrent in 2007 [0]. I have little doubt that ISPs will continue to escalate this game of service degradation and denial without strict regulation. 0: http://consumerist.com/2007/10/27/damning-proof-comcast-cont...

Many people don't realize much of the bit torrent debate ended because bit torrent switched from TCP to µTP. The problem was bit torrent clients caused massive congestion by making hundreds of TCP connections. µTP is extremely congestion/network friendly. It backs off based on latency, so it doesn't fill every buffer on the network.

The BitTorrent discussion didn't end because of uTP. It ended because ISPs got bigger fish to fry. Fish with actual money, like Google/Youtube and Netflix.

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#45

Post by blueblob » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 8:07 PM UTC

shigginbotham wrote: post #18

blueblob wrote: post #2

Make the cable companies common carriers! https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutra...

This actually isn't a net neutrality issue because back in 2009 when the FCC was writing the open internet order it decided not to mess with peering and interconnection disputes. So designating ISPs as common carriers could be a first step here, but it wouldn't be the only step.

Could you explain in a little more detail? I was under the impression that the FCC would fix prices for common carriers, and therefore they would have to at least charge everyone in the same manner.

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#46

Post by Fasebook » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 8:29 PM UTC

AJ007 wrote: post #37

No one has pointed out that this is bad for the providers throttling traffic. If Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T want their names to be associated with budget brands then its ok. Customers accept poor quality when the price is really low and there is no lock in (pre-paid mobile phone service.) Good luck getting those people to purchase premium services from you years in to the future. On Hacker News we complain a lot…

Nobody dares to speak to how bad this is for the traffic. The "infrastructure issues" were introduced a long time ago when it was decided that all data needs to go through egress points, and conform to arbitrary standards for metadata. Japan doesn't have this problem because their internet actually is decentralized, and their culture isn't at threat from users streaming their own video to as many people as they wish (and the network supports it).

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#47

Post by JTon » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 8:30 PM UTC

aroch wrote: post #12

talmand wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of, my understanding is that they mostly received tax breaks with possibly some subsidies. Either way, they received an incentive to do so.

Verizon got something like $10billion in cash to build FiOS out in New York...and never did

I've heard this before. How can they "get away" not building it, legally speaking? Makes no sense to me in this context

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#48

Post by aroch » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 9:34 PM UTC

JTon wrote: post #47

aroch wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verizon got something like $10billion in cash to build FiOS out in New York...and never did

I've heard this before. How can they "get away" not building it, legally speaking? Makes no sense to me in this context

Because of how the contract was worded, they didn't have to actually provide the service just "attempt" to or something like that

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#49

Post by j_m_b » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 10:04 PM UTC

corysama wrote: post #35

j_m_b wrote: post #19

As a comcast customer, I've noticed that if I am having a problem with streaming video that if I go to speedtest.net, the video streams fine after the initial ping test from speedtest.net. It will be fine for a few moments (seconds to minutes), but will slow down or stutter again eventually. A fresh visit to speedtest.net again corrects the problem. I have a hunch that a visit to speedtest.net will disable traffic sh…

I can't find it now, but I have read an article about a guy who wrote a script to ping speedtest once/minute. It made a clear, measurable difference in his download rate from other sites as long as he kept the script running.

Yep! Another commenter mentioned writing a script to do this. I would very much appreciate it if you could try to find the search terms to locate that article and post the article as a reply. I would appreciate it very much!

Re: There’s something rotten in the state of online video streaming

#50

Post by warfangle » Thu, Feb 06, 2014, 10:12 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #42

AJ007 wrote: post #37

No one has pointed out that this is bad for the providers throttling traffic. If Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T want their names to be associated with budget brands then its ok. Customers accept poor quality when the price is really low and there is no lock in (pre-paid mobile phone service.) Good luck getting those people to purchase premium services from you years in to the future. On Hacker News we complain a lot…

> If Time Warner, Comcast, and AT&T want their names to be associated with budget brands then its ok. It is definitely not OK. Time Warner is absolute garbage and has been for a very long time. Cablevision has an excellent network. I know this very well. Unfortunately, some towns contracted with Time Warner and some with Cablevision and you can't pick who you want as your provider ... unless you decide on where you l…

> unless you decide on where you live based on the available ISP.

Interestingly, if I ever move out of my current neighborhood, this (along with apartment price) will dictate where I look. I'm pretty happy with Cablevision for now, though.