[TelstraClear] YouTube poor performance on TelstraClear

Forums › One New Zealand (including Vodafone, WxC, Farmside) › [TelstraClear] YouTube poor performance on TelstraClear

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 33

BDFL - Memuneh
76418 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#308033 16-Mar-2010 22:10

Nope... Not a bad thing since that videoclip is terrible. I stopped watching it when it paused for buffering for the 5th time.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

sleemanj

1474 posts

Uber Geek

#308074 16-Mar-2010 23:43

antoniosk:

Played it on full 1080p on our Vista machine, so a hefty streaming download.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ95z6ywcBY

Buffering even down at 360, 11:43pm.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

ohpersven

27 posts

Geek

#309550 21-Mar-2010 17:10

WellingtonBoy:
Why can't TCL keep us informed about what they're doing (or not doing) about this YouTube issue. Six monthes, numerous complaints to their servicedesk and no decent updates. Just "we're working on it" for month after month.

Anyone from TCL who reads this forum should contact the TCL marketing department and remind them that this forum has had well over 20,000 views (and growing). Surely there is ONE person at TCL who thinks it's a good idea to keep large groups of frustrated customers informed? Or do TCL staff read this and do nothing?

Those that read these forums do the best they can to assist with the issue, but we're not the ones with access to the cheque books ;)

mattbush

784 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#309612 21-Mar-2010 20:28

ohpersven:
WellingtonBoy:
Why can't TCL keep us informed about what they're doing (or not doing) about this YouTube issue. Six monthes, numerous complaints to their servicedesk and no decent updates. Just "we're working on it" for month after month.

Anyone from TCL who reads this forum should contact the TCL marketing department and remind them that this forum has had well over 20,000 views (and growing). Surely there is ONE person at TCL who thinks it's a good idea to keep large groups of frustrated customers informed? Or do TCL staff read this and do nothing?

Those that read these forums do the best they can to assist with the issue, but we're not the ones with access to the cheque books ;)

yes..we are only the clients...and if my memory serves me right ...dont we pay them?

BigBadaboom

151 posts

Master Geek

#310009 22-Mar-2010 23:18

There's a lot of bagging of TCL going on here, but it may not be entirely their fault.

Mauricio's theory from his blog post ( http://www.geekzone.co.nz/freitasm/7070 ) is reasonably convincing. For all I know, he has inside knowledge and it's more than a theory. It wouldn't surprise me as it makes a lot of sense.

For those that didn't get the gist of his theory, I'll rephrase it here.

- Google has local caches/mirrors of their content here in NZ.
- Sensibly for them, they host them at the largest ISP (Telecom).
- Google direct all requests from NZ to the NZ caches.

Unfortunately here's where it breaks down. Because of past inter-ISP political nonsense, there is only a limited amount of peering going on. Peering means inter-ISP direct connections.

- Because TCL and Telecom don't peer, all requests from TCL customers have to connect to the local caches by going via the US.
- That high latency results in low transfer speeds.

When TCL say they are "working with Google on a solution", they probably mean one of two things:

- They are negotiating with Google to get their own Google caches
- They are negotiating with Google to get their IPs removed from the list of IPs that are redirected to Telecom's caches.

So this whole YouTube mess is IMO partly TelstraClears fault, partly Telecom's fault and a little bit Google's fault.

No one has spelt it out plainly. Everyone in the know seems to have been rather coy about the situation. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but this is what I'm assuming based on Mauricio's theory and reading between the lines on some other posts. Comments?

LennonNZ

2449 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#310015 22-Mar-2010 23:56

Comments....

Ummm.. 95% of your statements where quite wrong and you have implied many things which are quite wrong .
Even after reading Maurico's comments I don't see how you came up with most of your Statements

There is not a "NZ" Google cache.. Telecom have their own (AFAIK) google cache and other ISP's may have their own (or may have access to one within NZ)
Peering has nothing to do with it
TelstraClear customers don't access Telecom's cache.

+ other things you said are wrong..

PenultimateHop

637 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#310016 22-Mar-2010 23:58

BigBadaboom: Unfortunately here's where it breaks down. Because of past inter-ISP political nonsense, there is only a limited amount of peering going on. Peering means inter-ISP direct connections.

- Because TCL and Telecom don't peer, all requests from TCL customers have to connect to the local caches by going via the US.

Actually, TCL and Telecom do have a direct peering relationship. In fact, they've basically stated they will only peer with each other, because they are the only "equivalently sized networks" in NZ.

BigBadaboom

151 posts

Master Geek

#310021 23-Mar-2010 00:14

LennonNZ: Comments....
Ummm.. 95% of your statements where quite wrong and you have implied many things which are quite wrong .

Alright. I guess I am completely wrong then. I said it was my impression based on Maurisio's post and other posts in this thread.

LennonNZ: Comments....
Even after reading Maurico's comments I don't see how you came up with most of your Statements

Hmmm...

"Could it be that politics of peering are involved in this? Peering is a very sensitive subject within TelstraClear."

"Google is clever and wants free (or low cost) distribution of its content. To this end they enter an agreement with larger ISPs and colocate cache boxes."

"Of course if your ISP don't have one of these boxes then your traffic to Google's online properties needs to find the content somewhere else. In TelstraClear's case it seems this traffic goes all the way to the US and back."

If I've mischaracterised Mauricio's post then I apologise to him. But I don't think my interpretation was completely crazy.

Thanks for correcting me so politely.

sleemanj

1474 posts

Uber Geek

#310022 23-Mar-2010 00:15

BigBadaboom:
- Google has local caches/mirrors of their content here in NZ.

Correct, Google works with ISPs to run caches.

BigBadaboom:
- Sensibly for them, they host them at the largest ISP (Telecom).

Partly correct, Telecom runs caches for it's customers.

BigBadaboom:
- Google direct all requests from NZ to the NZ caches.

Incorrect, if your ISP doesn't have the ability to use a local cache you will get thrown to a US cache. I just hit v24.lscache7.c.youtube.com which is for me 74.125.103.39 which is a google owned IP allocation and going by the ping times the hardware is on the west coast of the United States.

BigBadaboom:
Unfortunately here's where it breaks down. Because of past inter-ISP political nonsense, there is only a limited amount of peering going on. Peering means inter-ISP direct connections.

A little bit correct, good peering, like the good old days, would make it easier for Google to provide a cache for everybody.

BigBadaboom:
- Because TCL and Telecom don't peer, all requests from TCL customers have to connect to the local caches by going via the US.

Incorrect, TCL customers use US youtube servers, not any local ones.

BigBadaboom:
- That high latency results in low transfer speeds.

Incorrect, latency should have little effect. Bandwidth is where things fall down.

BigBadaboom:
When TCL say they are "working with Google on a solution", they probably mean one of two things:
- They are negotiating with Google to get their own Google caches

Most likely correct. It's all about money. Google won't want to pay, neither will TCL.

BigBadaboom:
- They are negotiating with Google to get their IPs removed from the list of IPs that are redirected to Telecom's caches.

Incorrect. See preious.

BigBadaboom:
So this whole YouTube mess is IMO partly TelstraClears fault, partly Telecom's fault and a little bit Google's fault.

Nothing to do with Telecom.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

PenultimateHop

637 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#310032 23-Mar-2010 03:42

sleemanj:
BigBadaboom:
- That high latency results in low transfer speeds.

Incorrect, latency should have little effect. Bandwidth is where things fall down.

Actually, this is one of the most correct assertions in the post. Latency is a big contributor to throughput (or goodput) in networks - see the "Long Fat Network" effect, or Bandwidth Delay Product.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76418 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#310076 23-Mar-2010 09:39

The last few comments have some truth in then. Without going into details (which I promised I wouldn't disclose) I am aware there's a budget assigned to this problem and work is in progress to solve it. This is pretty much inline with TelstraClear disclosure both here (once) and on Twitter (a couple of times).

What is the solution, how and when it will be implemented is what I can't disclose.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

sleemanj

1474 posts

Uber Geek

#310100 23-Mar-2010 10:27

PenultimateHop:
sleemanj:
BigBadaboom:
- That high latency results in low transfer speeds.

Incorrect, latency should have little effect. Bandwidth is where things fall down.

Actually, this is one of the most correct assertions in the post. Latency is a big contributor to throughput (or goodput) in networks - see the "Long Fat Network" effect, or Bandwidth Delay Product.

Latency to the cache servers is only around 150ms, this will not be an issue. Latency isn't the issue here.

If we were being routed through the ISS, that could be a problem, but luckily TCL isn't quite that bad.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

BlakJak

1097 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#310288 23-Mar-2010 16:32

I've seen 350ms latency turn a 10Mbit circuit into a 2.5Mbit circuit. Don't discount the affects even a few milliseconds can have.

Not blaming this particular fault on it, but it's worth being aware of.

No signature to see here, move along...

shrub

715 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#310291 23-Mar-2010 16:41

you'd think that if it was such a big issue you guys would of switched isp by now. I did almost 1 year ago and i very rarely have problems with telecom. The pings are lower the bandwith is greater and its cheaper.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
76418 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#310293 23-Mar-2010 16:42

The issue is unique and not bad enough to make you want to switch. You can't find 80GB plans on Telecom and their "unlimited" plan is... limited.

The issue is mildly annoying though, enough to make paying customers rally around.

Please support Geekzone by subscribing, or using one of our referral links: Dosh referral: 00001283 | Sharesies | Goodsync | Mighty Ape | Backblaze

freitasm on Keybase | My technology disclosure

1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ... | 33