If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Geek.com)   Buffering   (geek.com) divider line 105
    More: Asinine, internet backbone, content delivery network  
•       •       •

6929 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:37 PM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-21 11:55:06 AM
Google Fiber + Netflix = go f*ck yourself, cable
 
2014-02-21 12:04:06 PM
The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...
 
2014-02-21 12:04:57 PM
On old broadcast TV, commercial breaks lasted 2-3 minutes. With streaming TV, the buffering breaks are about the same, so we should be used to it.

Honest to God, watching Netflix at my idiot brother-in-law's house in NYC is like taking to a person with a severe stutter.
 
2014-02-21 12:17:08 PM
It must be a complete coincidence that a judge strikes down net neutrality, and suddenly Netflix users are experiencing slower speeds.
 
2014-02-21 12:19:42 PM

scottydoesntknow: It must be a complete coincidence that a judge strikes down net neutrality, and suddenly Netflix users are experiencing slower speeds.


Isn't it always?  But hey, at least American Idol is there to comfort us.
 
2014-02-21 12:20:47 PM

timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...


Banks don't have all the cash they should onsite at all times, that's impossible. It's the same with residential bandwidth. It also doesn't really matter what their 'infrastructure' is as they all have to rent and use the same backbones and inter ISP connections, not to mention international transmission costs. If an ISP rents a certain bandwidth and they exceed it, it costs them money.
 
2014-02-21 12:28:24 PM
Yet Amazon streaming seems largely unaffected...cowinkydink?
 
2014-02-21 12:30:54 PM

timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...


Oblig:
ticotimes.com
 
2014-02-21 12:32:34 PM

scottydoesntknow: It must be a complete coincidence that a judge strikes down net neutrality, and suddenly Netflix users are experiencing slower speeds.


I'm on a smaller ISP, so I'm getting a kick out of all this.

/just upgraded to 30 Mbps yesterday
//I can top out at 75 Mbps
///the population of my town is well under 10,000
 
2014-02-21 12:41:59 PM

Tr0mBoNe: timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...

Banks don't have all the cash they should onsite at all times, that's impossible. It's the same with residential bandwidth. It also doesn't really matter what their 'infrastructure' is as they all have to rent and use the same backbones and inter ISP connections, not to mention international transmission costs. If an ISP rents a certain bandwidth and they exceed it, it costs them money.


Except that bandwidth is not the same thing as a pressurized pipe. It's not f*cking water. In fact it SHOULD be regulated like water, but that's a totally different subject. The companies biatching about these problems somehow are making money hand over fist.

The problem the cable companies really have is that they are being squeezed by content providers who want more while customers continue to drop the cable portion of their service to services like Netflix - which they really don't like. To use the water analogy for a moment, it's like if you delivered water and coffee and you found out that this other place sold coffee beans for 1/10th the cost of your beans and those f*ckers were getting the water for their coffee through your very own service. So naturally, the solution is to slow the water supply between 6am and 10am and maybe pump some brown water through the system at that time.

If we were using the actual water analogy, people would be f*cking disgusted.
 
2014-02-21 12:53:06 PM
Really, Internet service should not be a flat fee, but charged based on usage like any other utility. Bandwidth is not an unlimited resource, and not everyone can draw streaming 1080p video at the same time with the current infrastructure, by charging for usage it'll save people who don't use the Internet for their primary entertainment money, it might lead to more judicious use of bandwidth (no torrenting everything you feel like just because if it costs you money) and would make those who use more of the resource pay for that use.

Of course, the government should also regulate it, because I do not trust ISPs to come up with a fair pricing structure.
 
2014-02-21 01:02:52 PM
The reason isn't intentional throttling, it's that the a-hole ISPs refuse to upgrade their equipment, even though Netflix will provide them a solution for FARKIN FREE.
 
2014-02-21 01:12:24 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the "I ran my Roku through a VPN and Netflix got faster, therefore Comcast must be throttling it" theory is way too unscientific to be taken seriously.  The VPN doesn't just take your connection and encrypt it.  Your traffic is following an entirely different route through the Internet.

It's not unreasonable that a large university might have a faster series of tubes than a penny pinching cable company.
 
2014-02-21 01:14:03 PM

Dinki: The reason isn't intentional throttling, it's that the a-hole ISPs refuse to upgrade their equipment, even though Netflix will provide them a solution for FARKIN FREE.


It has nothing to do with bandwidth. They want to control the content.
 
2014-02-21 01:17:41 PM

Dinki: The reason isn't intentional throttling, it's that the a-hole ISPs refuse to upgrade their equipment, even though Netflix will provide them a solution for FARKIN FREE.


Farkin free is a marketing term in this context.  Netflix's peering agreement requires a certain amount of money on the ISP's end for providing a 24/7 support contact, and also stipulates minimum bandwidth requirements which might require said ISPs to upgrade their equipment on their own dime.
 
2014-02-21 01:31:04 PM

serial_crusher: Am I the only one who thinks the "I ran my Roku through a VPN and Netflix got faster, therefore Comcast must be throttling it" theory is way too unscientific to be taken seriously.  The VPN doesn't just take your connection and encrypt it.  Your traffic is following an entirely different route through the Internet.

It's not unreasonable that a large university might have a faster series of tubes than a penny pinching cable company.


It's more likely to be reality than you think. Using makes any content filtering or throttling the ISP wants to do completely non-effective. They would have to throttle all VPN traffic. That's a good way to get every corporation in the country pissed off at you.
 
2014-02-21 01:35:18 PM

timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...


That's part of the problem there.  ISP's have long oversubscribed their equipment, since typical Internet traffic is bursty as people load a website, read, and then load the next one.  This allowed them to add a lot of users to a DLSAM or CMTS, without the necessary backhaul to support providing full speed to a lot of users at once.  Netflix throws a monkey wrench into things as the traffic isn't bursty, and screws up the calculations used to determine how much capacity is required for a certain number of users.  This isn't the first time, P2P apps like Bitttorent were the first to cause these sorts of issues, but it was relegated to a small number of "nerdy" users.  Netflix is mainstream now, with it built into every game console, blu-ray player, and smart TV.

From a business side, the other issue is most ISP's are also TV (content) providers.  So Netflix is competing head to head with their content business.  So Netflix is causing them trouble from two different directions.
 
2014-02-21 01:39:48 PM

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...

That's part of the problem there.  ISP's have long oversubscribed their equipment, since typical Internet traffic is bursty as people load a website, read, and then load the next one.  This allowed them to add a lot of users to a DLSAM or CMTS, without the necessary backhaul to support providing full speed to a lot of users at once.  Netflix throws a monkey wrench into things as the traffic isn't bursty, and screws up the calculations used to determine how much capacity is required for a certain number of users.  This isn't the first time, P2P apps like Bitttorent were the first to cause these sorts of issues, but it was relegated to a small number of "nerdy" users.  Netflix is mainstream now, with it built into every game console, blu-ray player, and smart TV.

From a business side, the other issue is most ISP's are also TV (content) providers.  So Netflix is competing head to head with their content business.  So Netflix is causing them trouble from two different directions.


Not only is it no longer bursty but there are peak bandwidth times. It's probably more bursty during the day as businesses use it, and less bursty at night when more people are at home watching Netflix on the tube.
 
2014-02-21 01:45:20 PM
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-02-21 01:48:24 PM

scottydoesntknow: It must be a complete coincidence that a judge strikes down net neutrality, and suddenly Netflix users are experiencing slower speeds.


What are you, some kind of a socialist?
 
2014-02-21 01:53:43 PM
Anecdotal, but still: we have Comcast in downtown SF and have been watching House of Cards almost every night for about a week from 7 to 10 pm, via PS3 if that matters...of the 10 or so episodes we watched, one was stuck at 480, two at 720, and the rest have come through at 1080. Comcast sucks but we're not having any problems with Netflix streaming quality, and this is prime time in a densely populated area.
 
2014-02-21 02:00:09 PM
My PS3 will no longer stream HD content apparently.  My PC streams it better but no HD if I have two devices trying at once.  I may try to VPN into my school network and see how that works since I use a different ISP for school.

/home is TWC
//School is Westelcom
 
2014-02-21 02:02:51 PM

nmrsnr: Really, Internet service should not be a flat fee, but charged based on usage like any other utility


It is based on usage though ... Comcast and Cox have data caps of about 300-400gb for the normal plans, and their plans also state the promised bandwidth.

What's happening here is that everyone wants to use their data between 5 and 8 PM, and the cable companies are refusing to improve their equipment to support it, instead playing around with anti-neutrality policies, and throttling users so when they call to complain of buffering, they are sold on faster packages (12-20mbps standard plans are enough for HD video but it doesn't always seem that way).
 
2014-02-21 02:07:17 PM

Gig103: nmrsnr: Really, Internet service should not be a flat fee, but charged based on usage like any other utility

It is based on usage though ... Comcast and Cox have data caps of about 300-400gb for the normal plans, and their plans also state the promised bandwidth.

What's happening here is that everyone wants to use their data between 5 and 8 PM, and the cable companies are refusing to improve their equipment to support it, instead playing around with anti-neutrality policies, and throttling users so when they call to complain of buffering, they are sold on faster packages (12-20mbps standard plans are enough for HD video but it doesn't always seem that way).


I wouldn't theoretically be opposed the variable rates during peak hours, just like I'm not theoretically opposed the bandwidth caps.

I don't particularly trust ISPs to implement fair rates though, given their track record with the fairness of bandwidth caps.
 
2014-02-21 02:12:12 PM
Let's study the models used in countries where they've made high speed low cost internet work then follow that model here. I call my plan the "Finding out what works then doing that Plan".
 
2014-02-21 02:15:49 PM

timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...


That's ridiculous. How do you cram all those extra bits into the Internet? The tubes can only hold so much before they clog or burst ... where do you think all those extra bits will go? And then I receive only half an email and what then?
 
2014-02-21 02:16:28 PM
Look, you greedy assclowns, you do get paid for all those bits you carry: by your subscribers! That's how the system works. Not making enough money? Raise your rates. Or fire that overpaid CEO and get a management team that will work for a reasonable salary..
 
2014-02-21 02:17:00 PM

Gig103: t is based on usage though


That's not based on usage. Your electric company doesn't say "for $80/mo. I'll let you draw up to 2MWH, and then cut off your power." They charge you per unit of electricity used. There's no reason Internet can't be run on a similar data usage model, except that I don't trust Internet providers.
 
2014-02-21 02:20:18 PM

bdub77: Google Fiber + Netflix = go f*ck yourself, cable


My city has a Google "server farm" so I was hoping it would get Google Fiber, but I think the city also has an ancient monopoly clause with the local cable provider that was made in 1977. I hope Google makes a power move the moment that contract with the cable company is about to expire.
 
2014-02-21 02:21:43 PM

nmrsnr: Really, Internet service should not be a flat fee, but charged based on usage like any other utility. Bandwidth is not an unlimited resource, and not everyone can draw streaming 1080p video at the same time with the current infrastructure, by charging for usage it'll save people who don't use the Internet for their primary entertainment money, it might lead to more judicious use of bandwidth (no torrenting everything you feel like just because if it costs you money) and would make those who use more of the resource pay for that use.

Of course, the government should also regulate it, because I do not trust ISPs to come up with a fair pricing structure.


I would actually be super-happy if ISPs switched to a utility model, however when they do they don't follow the rules. It costs the ISP at most three cents per gigaBYTE. If the charged a $20 connect fee and a nickel per GB I think we would all be happy, except moderate users would have much smaller bills and only customers that burn through a TB every month would pay more.
 
2014-02-21 02:25:28 PM

serial_crusher: I wouldn't theoretically be opposed the variable rates during peak hours, just like I'm not theoretically opposed the bandwidth caps.

I don't particularly trust ISPs to implement fair rates though, given their track record with the fairness of bandwidth caps.


I'm against it not only because of the trust you mention, but because the goal of tiers is to convince customers to time shift. I run my pool pump, dishwasher, and most laundry off-peak for my tiered electric bill. But until I can download overnight to watch during the day (legally, via Netflix, Prime, etc), I don't think a tier would be appropriate.


red5ish: Let's study the models used in countries where they've made high speed low cost internet work then follow that model here. I call my plan the "Finding out what works then doing that Plan".


Maybe the US government should use eminent domain for good (for a change) and nationalize the cellular and cable lines. Part of the maintenance would be collected via taxes, and part of it from the subscribers via whoever they contract for delivery of that service. Look at mobile service here ($50-$70/mo for voice + capped data, possibly with 2 year contract), vs. in the UK, where a no-contract unlimited 3G plan is 15 (~$25).
 
2014-02-21 02:31:30 PM

nmrsnr: Gig103: t is based on usage though

That's not based on usage. Your electric company doesn't say "for $80/mo. I'll let you draw up to 2MWH, and then cut off your power." They charge you per unit of electricity used. There's no reason Internet can't be run on a similar data usage model, except that I don't trust Internet providers.


I think it's a bit more complex, particularly when your high speed internet provider is also your cable TV provider. I'm not saying that providers shouldn't upgrade their infrastructure, they absolutely should, but I don't believe the stress of increased demand is necessarily the primary cause behind degraded speeds.
The cost of providing high speed internet is low compared to providing cable TV content. Netflix is eating cable TV's lunch. Cable providers are charging more for high speed internet in order to make the cost of cable TV content more competitive. Additionally they are making streaming content less attractive by throttling it. We are seeing a situation where the cable TV/high speed internet providers, who are sucking money out of their customer's pockets at a fantastic rate, are fighting frantically to maintain their profits.
 
2014-02-21 02:31:53 PM

ArcadianRefugee: timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...

That's ridiculous. How do you cram all those extra bits into the Internet? The tubes can only hold so much before they clog or burst ... where do you think all those extra bits will go? And then I receive only half an email and what then?


I had an interweb tube burst in my backyard... bits went everywhere... flooded my whole yard...
 
2014-02-21 02:34:02 PM

stonicus: I had an interweb tube burst in my backyard... bits went everywhere... flooded my whole yard...


You should have hired a big truck to come tow it all away.
 
2014-02-21 02:34:08 PM

scottydoesntknow: It must be a complete coincidence that a judge strikes down net neutrality, and suddenly Netflix users are experiencing slower speeds.


Netflix been farking up before that
 
2014-02-21 02:35:57 PM
I love my isp.  I have 30mb (down AND up) through them for $30/mo and they've recently announced gigabit.
 
2014-02-21 02:36:50 PM
Gee. It's almost enough to make a person think that Comcast, Verizon and the other villainous scum in the provider industry have been overselling their capacity in the cynical belief that consumers wouldn't actually try to use what they're paying for...
 
2014-02-21 02:38:32 PM

ArcadianRefugee: That's ridiculous. How do you cram all those extra bits into the Internet? The tubes can only hold so much before they clog or burst ... where do you think all those extra bits will go? And then I receive only half an email Internet and what then?


FTFY
 
2014-02-21 02:40:25 PM

Gig103: Maybe the US government should use eminent domain for good (for a change) and nationalize the cellular and cable lines. Part of the maintenance would be collected via taxes, and part of it from the subscribers via whoever they contract for delivery of that service. Look at mobile service here ($50-$70/mo for voice + capped data, possibly with 2 year contract), vs. in the UK, where a no-contract unlimited 3G plan is 15 (~$25).


You can get no-contract unlimited (though maybe throttled after a point) plans in the US for ~$40. People just don't do it because they like predending that they're getting a "free" phone with that two year contract.
 
2014-02-21 02:46:32 PM
It is indeed asinine. Internet costs are absurdly inflated for consumers...fark you ISP's, fark you.
 
2014-02-21 02:47:24 PM

bdub77: Google Fiber + Netflix = go f*ck yourself, cable


We can't get google fiber here so fark you.

/Jealousy is an ugly thing
 
2014-02-21 02:49:15 PM
Dammit, I finally decided to just suck it up and start streaming at least SOME shiat through Netflix.I hooked up a new computer to my weather station, and decided to also use it for streaming, I thought the shiatty connection was somehow due to the computer.

Well, I've never really been impressed with Netflix before, anyway...
 
2014-02-21 02:55:55 PM
Gig103:
red5ish: Let's study the models used in countries where they've made high speed low cost internet work then follow that model here. I call my plan the "Finding out what works then doing that Plan".

Maybe the US government should use eminent domain for good (for a change) and nationalize the cellular and cable lines. Part of the maintenance would be collected via taxes, and part of it from the subscribers via whoever they contract for delivery of that service. Look at mobile service here ($50-$70/mo for voice + capped data, possibly with 2 year contract), vs. in the UK, where a no-contract unlimited 3G plan is 15 (~$25).


Socialized internet, I like it.
People who wanted to use a private provider still could, but would have to pay a tax penalty.
Obama.gov.net
 
2014-02-21 02:59:03 PM
ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers and want Netflix to pay additional fees to cover its usage. In an effort to compel the streaming company to agree, ISPs have allegedly delayed connection upgrades that would alleviate the increasing congestion.

Go Fark yourself.  This is why we need net neutrality.
 
2014-02-21 03:00:04 PM
Not that I'm going to tell you to pirate stuff but if it's not streaming, there is no buffering.
 
2014-02-21 03:02:46 PM
ISPs are technological drug dealers. They know everyone is hooked by now and they'll continue to fark us for it.
 
2014-02-21 03:02:53 PM

Begoggle: Socialized internet, I like it.


More like the interstate highway system. The government wouldn't be the ISP, just the backbone provider. In my example Beoggle, Inc. could become an ISP, and resell the bandwidth. More competition!
 
2014-02-21 03:03:58 PM

skozlaw: Gee. It's almost enough to make a person think that Comcast, Verizon and the other villainous scum in the provider industry have been overselling their capacity in the cynical belief that consumers wouldn't actually try to use what they're paying for...


Of course they are, like they should be.  It would be idiotic to build out the network to support 100% usage for all customers simultaneously.  If you want guaranteed bandwidth I'm sure you can get a T1 for 1.5mbps at the low, low price of $500 / month.  That's not to say that they haven't over provisioned their over provisioning but to say that they shouldn't over provision is really dumb.


timujin: The Wall Street Journal reports that Netflix traffic through internet backbone provider Cogent has quadrupled in the last six months as Netflix has expanded 1080p HD streams to all customers. ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers

That's not how it works.  Extra "bits" don't cost extra money.  Now, if your existing infrastructure gets saturated and you have to build out more in order to compensate, that costs money, but the infrastructure to provide their customers the speeds they've agreed to and are paying for should already be in place, so...


Yes and no.  The issue tends to be peering agreements.  So, as in their example, you have Verizon and Cogent networks coming together at a certain location, some large carrier hotel somewhere.  A peering agreement usually is stated something like "Heh, I have 10Gbps of traffic that my users want from your network and you have 9.5Gbps of traffic that your users want from my network.  Let's link our networks and call it a day".  This works well if traffic going both ways is relatively equal.  Now, Netflix hosts its servers on Cogent.  Now it is "Heh, I have 10Gbps of traffic that my users want from your network and you have 50Gbps of traffic that your users want from my network.  That's going to cost you.".

What is really messing things up honestly is that companies like Comcast are not letting Netflix host their content on their network.  Now, this is somewhat understandable because they are a competitor but it messes up the peering agreements and leads to general network inefficiencies.
 
2014-02-21 03:06:17 PM

PhilGed: ISPs are upset about the increased cost of delivering those bits to subscribers and want Netflix to pay additional fees to cover its usage. In an effort to compel the streaming company to agree, ISPs have allegedly delayed connection upgrades that would alleviate the increasing congestion.

Go Fark yourself.  This is why we need net neutrality.


Curious how net neutrality would force companies to increase their bandwidth...
 
2014-02-21 03:09:52 PM
As apparently one of three people on the East Coast that subscribes to the DVD only plan on Netflix, I am laughing right now.

\will cancel it soon
\\have Amazon Prime for streaming
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report