Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

YouTube Releases the Google Video Quality Report

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the how-do-you-stack-up? dept.

The Internet 66

mpicpp (3454017) writes "YouTube has released a tool that can show you how your video-streaming quality compares to your neighbor's. 'The Google Video Quality Report is available to people in the U.S. and Canada, where it launched in January. It compares your streaming video quality to three standards: HD Verified, when your provider can deliver HD video consistently at a resolution of at least 720p without buffering or interruptions; Standard Definition, for consistent video streaming at 360p; and Lower Definition, for videos that regularly play at less than 360p or often are interrupted."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Weak article, weaker report (3, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 6 months ago | (#47125837)

"Results from your location are not yet available. Please check back soon."

Translation: You don't live in one of the 3 metro areas we tested, but we hired some bloggers to crow about our new "service".

Re:Weak article, weaker report (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about 6 months ago | (#47125891)

"720p"

Re:Weak article, weaker report (4, Interesting)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 6 months ago | (#47126529)

Don't get too excited - the data is garbage. My 25/10mbps connection wouldn't stream over 320p despite my ISP hosting a cache. I installed the Youtube HighDef addon and sure enough I can stream 1080p easily. Reports on dslr show that they've got serious issues with their cache servers in specific areas and if you bypass them (ie: block their IPs) you'll get better streaming results from other areas further away which further skews the data.

Re:Weak article, weaker report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47125937)

I live on a small island in Canada and it still showed my results fine, where the hell do you live? xD

Re:Weak article, weaker report (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#47126023)

Fort Wayne, Indiana, doesn't have results yet.

Re:Weak article, weaker report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47129023)

I'm in the middle of nowhere in Québec where the wildlife population is probably 100 times higher than our small town and we also have results.

Re:Weak article, weaker report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126287)

It worked for CenturyLink in Seattle. Google claims to "expect smooth playback on non-HD YouTube videos (at least 360p) and may experience occasional interruptions on HD videos." That isn't true with the typical DSL line in this area. At home, I usually have less than 1 Mbps. I've never seen a connection faster than 2,560 kbsp here, and I've probably been in at least two dozen homes to setup VPN access for employees. Google's claim is wildly optimistic.

Re:Weak article, weaker report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47129933)

LOL at the no buffering claims. I'm also on CenturyLink, and videos download at about 100 kbps from YouTube. Trying to make it through even just a two minute video is a trying experience.

Re:Weak article, weaker report (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 6 months ago | (#47132219)

You're full of shit. CenturyLink DSL is better than that. Here is proof that I have more than 1 Mbps in Seattle:

http://www.speedtest.net/my-re... [speedtest.net]

I have nearly 1.5 Mbps. Seattle is not the technology backwater that people claim it is. They are wrong.

Re:Weak article, weaker report (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 6 months ago | (#47126329)

Same thing in Surrey, BC (south-east of Vancouver).

Re: Weak article, weaker report (4, Informative)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 6 months ago | (#47126781)

Link to the tool instead of sifting through several lame blogs: http://www.google.com/get/vide... [google.com]

Also smacks of Google strong arming people (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 6 months ago | (#47126795)

The reason is the categories, specifically the "YouTube(tm) HD Verified" one. Sounds like "Do what we like to get official cred or else."

Also seems to be what is happening in my area. We are on their results list. However Comcast Xfinity is the only "HD Verified" ISP. Cox is listed as SD...

But then you look at the results and you see that Cox's graph looks basically the same as Comcasts in terms of HD/SD video plays. Also my informal surveys of people seem to support that Cox does a better job around here. I find way more people who hate Comcast than Cox.

And of course it highly depends on package. Cox has everything from a "ultimate suck cheapy" service which maxes out at 5mbps, and thus might have poor streaming, up to a 150mbps service that I have for which Youtube streams are less than 10% of available bandwidth. Anywhere you can get their service in town you can get those two or anything in between so people's experience can vary greatly.

Heck even Century Link, which is fairly crap service as phone companies often are, has many more HD than SD views and still qualifies as an "SD" provider.

So something smells fishy. Unless there's clearer definitions as to what it means to be "HD Verified" I'm wondering if this isn't more of a "pay us and/or do what we want to get verified" kind of thing. Otherwise, what's the deal? Like at this time period, they claim Comcast has 93% HD streams and Cox has 90%. Shit that is easy within a margin of error accounting for differences in speeds of connections, computers, and even choice of video (I watch a number of videos that don't have HD). Yet somehow that 3% is enough for a difference in classification?

I'm all for better streaming video, but I am a little suspicious about this.

Re:Also smacks of Google strong arming people (1)

non0score (890022) | about 6 months ago | (#47126945)

So...Google is strong arming ISPs to deliver the bandwidth they promised (which you paid for), and that's bad all of a sudden? And I think you can't fathom the amount of traffic that YouTube gets, so your sense of "margin of error" is probably orders of magnitude off. And at the end of the day, if I don't get my HD stream, then I don't have an HD cat video stream. I don't fucking care if it's within your "margin of error".

If you don't like this tool, well, go find something else that is reasonably objective, not "optimized" by the ISPs, and comes even close to the confidence of this data. Good luck with that.

Re:Also smacks of Google strong arming people (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 months ago | (#47129927)

So...Google is strong arming ISPs to deliver the bandwidth they promised (which you paid for), and that's bad all of a sudden? And I think you can't fathom the amount of traffic that YouTube gets, so your sense of "margin of error" is probably orders of magnitude off. And at the end of the day, if I don't get my HD stream, then I don't have an HD cat video stream. I don't fucking care if it's within your "margin of error".

If you don't like this tool, well, go find something else that is reasonably objective, not "optimized" by the ISPs, and comes even close to the confidence of this data. Good luck with that.

Wrong.
This is the exact same shit Netflix pulled with "Super HD". It has nothing to do with the capability of the ISP to provide the connection to the user or to a peer. It has everything to do with whether or not the ISP has agreed to run caching servers for Netflix/Google within their network. Netflix used the "Super HD" horse shit make users bitch to their ISPs, who in turn ended up accepting Netflix's shitty agreements about hosting their boxes. Google will be doing the exact same thing.

It's got NOTHING to do with your ISP or your actual Youtube experience, it's got EVERYTHING to do with shaming ISPs who aren't accepting Google's terms until users bitch and force them to do so. The question is will Google artificially limit Youtube on ISPs that hold out like Netflix did with Super HD? (Alternatively: Will users even be able to tell whether a shitty Youtube experience is a result of artificial limiting or just Youtube's general shittiness?)

Re:Also smacks of Google strong arming people (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#47134023)

This is the exact same shit Netflix pulled with "Super HD". It has nothing to do with the capability of the ISP to provide the connection to the user or to a peer. It has everything to do with whether or not the ISP has agreed to run caching servers for Netflix/Google within their network.

I know some of the engineers working on this, and what you say is not true. Google does offer (and provides and pays for) caching servers for ISPs who want them, but they actually don't do much to help achieve HD verified status, because Google is so heavily peered with everyone that that is almost never the bottleneck. This is all about getting ISPs to fix the last mile.

Re:Also smacks of Google strong arming people (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 months ago | (#47139125)

And I know the smell of bullshit.
This is about naming and shaming to get advantageous agreements regarding hosting Google's shit on the ISPs network, in their physical space, on their power, and on their dime. Peering does nothing to reduce bottlenecks, it reduces your bill to your peers. Caching shit closer to the destination reduces bottlenecks, and for Google, costs. Youtube uses TONS of bandwidth, and they don't want to pay for it. It's as simple as that.

The last mile is not the issue. If that were the case my gigabit connection at work would get decent playback on Youtube. My 100 megabit connection at home would get decent playback. No other sites have the issues that Youtube does. It's all about Youtube sucking fat shit with their streaming setup. Remember kids: DASH is TRASH. Want proof? Get an addon that lets you disable DASH playback. Enjoy functional Youtube. I use Youtube Center, though I think it has issues with the latest retard version of Firefox.

Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47125839)

Wasn't this available for months already? I swear I have seen this thing for a long time now.

Re:Wait... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#47127393)

The Internet Archive seems to have snapshots [archive.org] of the site dating back to January, so you most likely are right.

Link to the actual report tool (4, Informative)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 6 months ago | (#47125841)

Re:Link to the actual report tool (2)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 months ago | (#47125927)

That's not actually a report. It is a marketing page + a tool that tries to tell you your own results.

A report would contain a chart of various ISPs, their results, and other factors such as geographic location. None of that information is available.

Re:Link to the actual report tool (4, Informative)

Anaerin (905998) | about 6 months ago | (#47126037)

I guess you're not seeing the "Compare providers in your area" tab that shows at the bottom-right under the results graph? 'cause that showed for me, and listed both ISPs available in my area.

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 6 months ago | (#47128099)

Correct. The tab is disabled so there is no results graph, and the hovertext tells me that "Results from your location are not available."

Re:Link to the actual report tool (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47126047)

I'm fairly sure it is available.

At a price, of course.

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

chrisautrey (1960196) | about 6 months ago | (#47126439)

At a price, of course.

You already paid the price as the willing Google/Youtube ad tracked person.

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47127413)

When has charge the dolt twice if you can get away with it" gone out of fashion?

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

non0score (890022) | about 6 months ago | (#47126907)

Charging money for work? Preposterous!

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about 6 months ago | (#47129591)

But doesn't all information want to be free?

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

turning in circles (2882659) | about 6 months ago | (#47126049)

I agree. The so-called "Report" doesn't tell me my current video quality at all, it just gives the average over 30 days over all the customers in my area using my provider (so how does this compare me with my neighbor???). The only one who benefits from this is the ISP who will no doubt tout it in endless commercials. (And by the way, I'm in the 29th largest metropolitan area in the US, and it has results for here).

Re:Link to the actual report tool (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#47126157)

The only one who benefits from this is the ISP who will no doubt tout it in endless commercials.

They will if their rating is HD Verified. If they're not doing so well... not so much. And if your area has multiple providers (unfortunately not as common as it should be) you can click on the "compare providers" to see if there's someone who can do better for you.

Google's clear motive here is to push the ISPs to provide consistently high bandwidth, so that YouTube works better.

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#47128061)

Google's clear motive here is to push the ISPs to provide consistently high bandwidth, so that YouTube works better.

Consistency is the key. I use FIOS and going back a year or two I can't say I was thrilled with Youtube performance. It would frequently pause/buffer. I got into the habit of preloading everything with youtube-dl and then just playing it back from my HD as a result, but that isn't so convenient if you're on a tablet/etc.

Things seem to have gotten a lot better since then. My plan hasn't really changed in that time.

ISPs love advertising bandwidth to the last mile, and then they inevitably oversubscribe everything above that to death so that about the only ISP-hosted content actually gets the advertised treatment.

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#47128119)

Google's clear motive here is to push the ISPs to provide consistently high bandwidth, so that YouTube works better.

Consistency is the key.

Yeah, that's what this report is: measuring how consistently an ISP can deliver HD bandwidth.

I use FIOS and going back a year or two I can't say I was thrilled with Youtube performance. It would frequently pause/buffer. I got into the habit of preloading everything with youtube-dl and then just playing it back from my HD as a result, but that isn't so convenient if you're on a tablet/etc.

Things seem to have gotten a lot better since then. My plan hasn't really changed in that time.

What got better was YouTube. They've switched to an approach that dynamically adjusts playback quality based on bandwidth available. However, that's only a band-aid over the real problem, which is lousy ISPs that don't consistently deliver what they promise. What YouTube really wants is ISPs that can always deliver HD streams with low latency.

This initiative is clearly focused on enabling consumers to demand better from their ISPs.

ISPs love advertising bandwidth to the last mile, and then they inevitably oversubscribe everything above that to death so that about the only ISP-hosted content actually gets the advertised treatment.

Indeed.

Re:Link to the actual report tool (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 6 months ago | (#47126855)

Pretty tricky. I loaded it (from overseas via VPN) and it gave me results. I then disabled my VPN and tried again - I get a marketing page, with no hint that results could ever be obtained. Pretty slick on Google's part, there.

Comcast is faster, except when x,y,z,...... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47125871)

I love how everybody raves about how Comcast is faster than DSL, yet, I've never had a problem torrenting with DSL, streaming Netflix or other videos in HD, etc. People need to wake up and smell the lie that is Comcast. My internet connection isn't limited either and my connection remains a consistent 25 mbps (in an area where Comcast wouldn't be that much greater anyway despite claiming seemingly significantly higher speeds).

Yea- I'd rather have a 5-10 mbps internet connection over 'faster' Comcast connection any day.

Re:Comcast is faster, except when x,y,z,...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47131911)

I get a consistent 100 mbps and 10 up with Comcast pretty much any time of the day or night. I used to get consistent 25 down and 10 up before Fios moved in the area. Manassas VA.

Actually, I already know... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47125913)

...how my YouTube results compare with my neighbor's. It's the SAME GODDAMN RESULTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO COMPETITION IN BROADBAND.

Ahem. Move along, citizen.

Neighbor's? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47125929)

I already know how my YouTube speed results compare to my neighbor's.

THE RESULTS ARE THE SAME BECAUSE THERE IS NO GODDAMN COMPETITION IN BROADBAND.

Ahem. Move along, citizen.

Hmmm. (3, Insightful)

ColaMan (37550) | about 6 months ago | (#47126027)

"HD Verified" sounds suspiciously like a way to extract more money out of someone.

"Oh, you want to watch youtube? No, no, your standard account doesn't have that level of service.You need to get a Youtube HD Verified account. Only $9.95 a month extra!"

Re:Hmmm. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126245)

Or ammunition for the net neutrality fight. Not sure exactly how this data does that but it feels like it. If so, go Google. The more hard data available (like the Level3 congestion blog post), the better.

Re:Hmmm. (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 6 months ago | (#47129443)

Or ammunition for the net neutrality fight. Not sure exactly how this data does that but it feels like it. If so, go Google.

Just dont forget the rest of world Google (eg: != USA || Canada). We do exist.

Re:Hmmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126493)

"Oh, you want to watch youtube? No, no, your standard account doesn't have that level of service.You need to get a Youtube HD Verified account. Only $9.95 a month extra!"

YouTube has been downgraded a few times this year. Basic 1080p video (format 37, 1080x1920 mp4 video/audio stream available via HTTP) into this crappy DASH stuff where you have to remux 137 (1080x1920 mp4 video-only stream via DASH) and format 140 (128kbps m4a audio-only stream via DASH). That's also why, if you use the web player, you're always buffering and stuttering.

They also dropped format 141 (256kbps m4a audio-only stream via DASH), which is why the audio sucks balls now.

No legal reason for it. DMCA-prone content is just as much lawsuitbait in two separate streams of 1080pvideo and 128kbps audio as it is in one stream of 1080p+256kbps audio in one big .mp4 file. They never explained why they did it beyond "Because fuck you, that's why."

Re:Hmmm. (1)

Animats (122034) | about 6 months ago | (#47127081)

"HD Verified" sounds suspiciously like a way to extract more money out of someone.

NicoNico [nicovideo.jp] , the big Japanese video sharing site, already does that. "Premium Members get access to speedy video playback, priority seating for live broadcasts, and more! Seamless video playback even during heavy usage! 540 JPY/month!"

It's a bit late to be charging people extra for 720p, but charging extra for 2160p ("4K video") may be something the industry tries.

Re:Hmmm. (1)

paziek (1329929) | about 6 months ago | (#47127165)

I see nothing wrong with that as long as video streaming service does that, not my internet service provider. This is what has been in place for most porn sites, so whats new? I think GP is worried about ISP charging extra for such "service".

VERY NICE! (1)

kualla (2872067) | about 6 months ago | (#47126141)

This is a really great tool!!!

You can look at your ISP and determine by using this tool which hours your ISP's network is running into a bottleneck(peak hours), and as well look at other ISP's to determine bandwidth/bottlenecks. Also, see if other ISP's may offer better deals if you like to have a good connection at peak hours. You can actually see how the ISP's are performing throughout the day, rather than being advertised as X-Mbit connection, only to find out those speeds are only reachable at 3A.M.

This tool is very damn cool, great for competition and could even be used to help determine if throttling is occurring.

i applaud the effort (5, Insightful)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 6 months ago | (#47126201)

but i find this less tool a lot less useful than if they'd just let videos buffer to the end

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126321)

> let videos buffer to the end

That is frustrating. Because I live in Seattle, there are no options for fast Internet access so my typical YouTube viewing experience is to let the video buffer for a few minutes, watch thirty seconds of the video, alt-tab back to my browser for a few minutes to let the video buffer, then alt-tab back to watch thirty more seconds, and repeat. Watching even just a two minute video usually takes me more than half an hour with the distractions. It's a terrible experience. You are correct if we could hit play on the video, hit pause, wait ten minutes, then return to watch the entire video, it would be a much better experience.

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126753)

Yeah it's shitty, but you can imagine the enormous impact on bandwidth if they let every video buffer to the end. I'm sure 95% of youtube video views only watch the first few seconds before they realize what they're watching is shit. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the licensing agreements or streaming laws only allow a certain amount of buffering before it's considered downloading and not streaming.

Re:i applaud the effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47127419)

I'll bet they could figure out who's taking 20 minuts to watch a 3 minute vitdeo and adjust hte buffering to match. Just saying

Re:i applaud the effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126765)

The "DownloadHelper" Firefox extension may help you, especially for videos that you think you will want to watch again -- it grabs the source video file from the Youtube player (and other flash video players, for that matter) and downloads the whole thing.

Re:i applaud the effort (2)

amaurea (2900163) | about 6 months ago | (#47127187)

I recommend youtube-dl [github.io] . It's an easy-to-use open source command line tool for downloading videos from youtube and many other sites. It's a part of the package repositories of most linux distributions also. I usually start a download (youtube-dl link-to-video-page), and then immediately point mplayer at the in-progress file. So there's no delay compared to watching it in the browser, but seeking is much faster, and you get to use a decent player. And if the connection is slow, you just wait a bit.

If you prefer not to use a command-line tool, there are firefox extensions that do this kind of thing, like netvideohunter and downloadhelper, but they are a bit sleazy and support fewer sites, I think. They also can't be automated the way youtube-dl can.

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#47127407)

Then there is also MiniTube [tordini.org] , a dedicated YouTube desktop app for Win/Mac/Lin.

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#47127421)

Oh, and VLC can also play YouTube URLs.

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#47128077)

Can't endorse that enough. Youtube has improved on FIOS quite a bit, but my browser doesn't always consistently keep up with HD, so I routinely pre-download stuff using youtube-dl. For longer content I can also store it and then watch it in the living room via MythVideo (or whatever you want to use).

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#47143009)

There's SMPlayer Youtube (smtube?) that doesn't require to use a browser and is easy to use.

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 6 months ago | (#47153349)

i have youtube dl set up but it pushes the effort vs reward barrier pretty hard

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 6 months ago | (#47127571)

If you rightclick on the video itself, go to settings, and allow it to cache unlimited, it DOES buffer like it used to.

Re:i applaud the effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47127613)

The solution is to install one of the browser plugins that lets you download the video. Shitty that it's required, but it works.

Re:i applaud the effort (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47128479)

Or if it wouldn't throw away all buffered data just because you go back a few seconds because you missed something.

Re:i applaud the effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47134029)

but i find this less tool a lot less useful than if they'd just let videos buffer to the end

In the short term, that's true. In the longer run, Google would rather make ISPs deliver decent bandwidth both so you can get a better experience -- videos play instantly and without stopping at high resolution -- and so they don't have to send a lot of data that never actually gets viewed.

Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126523)

Youtube speed report has this feature for my ISP but Google does not. mmm.

Pay taxes in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47126709)

Because I can't see **** from Europe on the linked page.

I am unsatisfied (1)

Davidlogann2 (3670697) | about 6 months ago | (#47126713)

The article does not contain enough information for at least for me to understand completely about how this thing is going to work. Although it sounds interesting that we can compare our speed to our neighbors even if we don`t know them. Just think about what the ISPs are going react to this.

Re:I am unsatisfied (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#47127427)

Probably just geolocates your IP, does a bandwidth test and, then shows how it compares to other users.

Filmed with a toaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47127095)

Better would be a way to just block all videos under a certain quality from appearing in search results.

Also made me think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dSsla-q6o [slashdot.org]

sup google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47127515)

On a related note, what the hell has been going on with Google lately? Most of the time I can't even get YouTube videos to load. Sometimes refreshing the page with the video multiple time helps, other times -- not so much. I can stream any HD video on Vimeo without even having to wait for it to buffer, ever. Google Search is just as bad -- it won't even load sometimes, while Bing loads instantly. I wonder whether it's just me or whether it's a widespread problem.

No larger ISPs? (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about 6 months ago | (#47129229)

So if I type in small-town Saskatchewan, it will show me the local "Access Communications" and "Yourlink", both very small regional ISPs, but not Sasktel or Shaw, the two province-wide ISPs?

And if I type in Winnipeg (75% of the pop of all of SK), it says there's no results available?

What?

...and for us "commoners"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47206487)

The Google video quality report is impressive. When you run a Youtube video, an it hangs, sooner or later that little "want to know why?" thingir appears. Clicking on it pops up the infamous quality report page with only the banner. Nothing else.

Now, I must say I live in a "metropolitan" (?) area of 60,000. Only thngthat reaches my house in the middle of town is good ol' DSL unless you want to pay the jack booted cable company $150 a month for their "economical" bundled service. Quite a contrast to my present 1.5M DSL which seems to work well on most video sites except Youtube.

Yes, there is ONE wireless broadband carrier I could choose for about $20/month more. That is, if they can keep their service up for more than 48 hours. But I begin to rationalize a it and ask why I want to be blackmailed into higher cost broader bandwidth just to watch videos. It's a heck of al ot easier to use one of the free online Youtube-to-FLV/MP4 converters and save the file so that I can watch it again without Google Naziism twisting my arm.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?