 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 8:44 AM, Invisible wrote:
> It is utterly baffling to me that this is possible. In my experience,
> YouTube on its own is very unreliable. At certain times of day it's just
> unusuable, while at other times it's just about stable. (I guess this is
> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
For a while I was severely annoyed with Youtube, it seemed like no
matter what, you'd get huge delays and it would take forever to stream.
The thing with video sharing services like that is that it's really
dependent on the source material. e.g. If the source material is
compressed beyond reason, then it'll look like crap, no matter what.
I've seen some videos on Youtube that look beautiful, but I've also seen
videos on Youtube where I couldn't exactly tell what I was looking at.
With Netflix, at least the source is of good quality, so you get decent
quality video.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>
> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards. It's what I've got, and the
Hardly. Barely average now ... :D
> a 9' diagonal screen
want... :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 11:18 AM, nemesis wrote:
>> Why doesn't my Atari 2600 do HD?
>
> I was talking about modern game consoles.
Yeah, I know ... but it seems like Andrew is living somewhere in the past :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 4:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Has nothing to do with being a programmer. I know quite a few
> professional software engineers who have home cinema setups to watch
> movies, and far prefer that over watching in front of their computer
> screen.
I have an HTPC connected to my TV that I use for watching streaming
video and movies. Much more relaxed and comfortable than sitting at my
desk.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/28/2010 9:54 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> Isn't "NTSC color" like "ATM machine"?
But its still very common usage. We come from the department of
redundancy department. ;)
> Oh wait, "Never Twice Same Color" is not the official acronym meaning? :)
No, no it isn't. :) But it seems like it should be.. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4bd93db9$1@news.povray.org...
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
Example: Orange (aka France Telecom aka Suicide Alley) had a falling out
with Cogent, who provides transit from the US to them. Result: until their
little quarrel is resolved, Cogent is throttling the tubes(1) so watching
YouTube or downloading from MegaUpload has become a PITA at certain hours.
It does affect all US-based content, though it's more obvious with video or
filesharing. Orange users were a little bit annoyed when they discovered
that other ISPs were not affected.
G.
(1) Actually, some people are accusing Cogent, others blame Orange.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg YouTube
or iPlayer. It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load of people
using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet connection to a halt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
>
> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
> YouTube or iPlayer. It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load
> of people using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet
> connection to a halt.
More precisely: ISPs are based on the idea that nobody will use all of
the bandwidth they've paid for, and therefore it's OK for the ISPs to
provision the backbone with only a tiny fraction of the bandwidth
actually required.
And now YouTube and iPlayer are changing the way people use the
Internet, and ISPs are trying to claim that it's YouTube's "fault" for
being "irresponsible" by using up all this bandwidth - rather than
admitting that their networks are underprovisioned because it's more
profitable that way.
Still, once they start charging by the GB rather than the day, the
"problem" will solve itself...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:05:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
>>
>> Probably not. Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the
>> backbone.
>
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
Not necessarily. Bottlenecks can appear between any two nodes in a
network, not just the last hop.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:06:11 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 4/28/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>>
>> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards. It's what I've got, and
>> the
>
> Hardly. Barely average now ... :D
Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
My current ISP's policy is basically "we lease you a data pipe; what you
do with it, as long as you're not disrupting anyone, is your business".
>> a 9' diagonal screen
>
> want... :D
It's very nice. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
