×

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!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube To Offer Subscription Service This Week

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the david-after-dentist-fee dept.

Youtube 189

jfruh writes "According to an email from a Google spokesman, YouTube will be offering a $1.99/month subscription service as early as this week. This service will 'bring even more great content to YouTube for our users to enjoy and provide our creators with another vehicle to generate revenue from their content,' though there was no indication of what content will be offered through the service exactly. YouTube has offered rentals for specific videos before but this is the first time the service would go head-to-head with subscription services like Netflix."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

189 comments

guess they didn't listen to us (4, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43641015)

The Slashdot vote [slashdot.org] was pretty clear!

Of course not (2)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year ago | (#43641153)

While the poll may be a valid indicator of what the tech crowd desires, it's not a good indicator for the general public.
Plus, the rules are different now.
It seems clear that the basic YouTube service will be free. The pay service will be for premium content. There seems to be less resistance to that.

Re:Of course not (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43641227)

It seems clear that the basic YouTube service will be free. The pay service will be for premium content.

"Premium Content". I laugh every time I hear that phrase.

What exactly would this "Premium Content" be? What do they have in that crappy little window that is so wonderful and "Premium" that I will gladly pay them for it?

Re: Of course not (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43641581)

The dumb teenie video blogs where some kid comlains about the hard life of twenty first century first world high school

Re: Of course not (4, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43641687)

Well, dude, high school really is unfair! Hey, kids studied the multiplication table in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL! In high school, it's just assumed that you should be able to multiply without resorting to a verbal recitation of the table. The least they could do, is to post the table at the front of the room.

But, worse - they expect you to divide, add, subtract, AND multiply, all in the very same equation! It's INSANE, I tell you! Stupid formulas, new rules, geometry, trig, calc - it just goes on and on, with no end in sight!

Re: Of course not (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641971)

You think that's bad? My high school was on top of a mystical convergence and was full of vampires, witches, and demons. Even worse, my English teacher forced me to read the Great Gatsby.

Re:Of course not (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43641727)

What exactly would this "Premium Content" be?

Videos that are more expensive to produce than advertisers alone are willing to pay for.

Re:Of course not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642437)

What exactly would this "Premium Content" be? What do they have in that crappy little window that is so wonderful and "Premium" that I will gladly pay them for it?

Cats riding around on Roombas probably.

Re:Of course not (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43642787)

What exactly would this "Premium Content" be?

Cat videos. Funny cat videos. Kitten videos. Lolcat videos.

Other than that, I got nothin'.

Re:Of course not (2)

Black LED (1957016) | about a year ago | (#43641667)

I doubt it will really change much because people can still monetize their channels with adverts. Some will try to make the extra money grab with premium content, as you say, but I doubt many will.

So long as the subscription is actually monthly and doesn't require any long term commitment, I wouldn't have a problem paying if I noticed something that I really wanted to see. It might even provide motivation for better content.

Re:Of course not (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#43642751)

I can see organizations such as the BBC warming to this, I'd pay $2/mo for access to the BBC Earth archives and I'm sure UK taxpayers would gladly take it.

Ads (5, Insightful)

Teppy (105859) | about a year ago | (#43641087)

I'd definitely pay $2/month to remove the damn ads. Same goes for Hulu - why don't they have this option?

Re:Ads (1)

omglolbah (731566) | about a year ago | (#43641137)

in-fucking-deed....

Especially since they seem to have no tailoring to my interest so I get tons of ads for cruises, crappy insurance and other completely uninteresting things.
It has gotten annoying enough in some cases to make me download the clips in bulk via scripting instead of using the website... sigh

Untargeted (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43641197)

Especially since they seem to have no tailoring to my interest

You're right that YouTube video ads tend to be only vaguely targeted, even though I haven't disabled Google's various tracking mechanisms. Google has done a lot better job targeting its text ads. I gather from an ad that has been shown to me a few times about the benefits of advertising your business with video that perhaps Google is hurting for video advertisers.

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641201)

adblock is effective at removing youtube ads - if you want to support the video creators you like pretty much all of them have a donation button on their sites

hulu punishes you for removing ads by making the breaks longer but anything that you can find on hulu you can find on torrent trackers

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641231)

I've never seen an advertisement on Youtube.

Re:Ads (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43641327)

I've never seen an advertisement on Youtube.

me neither.

a friend of mine sees them all the time, on the same network. I haven't consciously even put up a block for them and you would think they would have an antiblocking system in place..

Re:Ads (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year ago | (#43642949)

I see them a lot more on my phone and tablet than I ever do on my desktop... guess they consider mobile users a more captive audience... still don't like a 15-30 second commercial for a 1-2 minute clip.

Re:Ads (3, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43641233)

I'd definitely pay $2/month to remove the damn ads

Or just use AdBlock.

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641485)

I have AdBlock installed on Chrome, and I still see the preview ads before videos ("you can skip this ad in 3... 2... 1...") and pop-up ads that show up overlaying the video (god, I hate those). How do you get AdBlock to block ALL ads??

Re:Ads (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43641603)

Maybe your copy isn't up to date? I use AdBlock at work, along with Ghostery and a few other extensions, and I...err...a coworker that has the same extensions...never sees an ad on YouTube. And at home, I use a variation on AdBlock in Safari, along with a hosts file I grabbed somewhere ages ago, and they effectively block everything as well.

The hosts file I have also successfully blocks the ads on Hulu. The issue with that, however, is that Hulu can tell when it's serving up ads, and if it doesn't serve up an ad, it replaces each ad with a 1 minute notice that you should turn off your ad blocker. I chose to keep the 1.5-2 minute commercial breaks instead of having 3-4 minutes of silence happening several times in each hour-long show.

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641531)

Or RequestPolicy, although that sometimes makes it difficult to watch YouTube since it does not yet have support for wildcards.

For those of you interested, the actual content seems to be located on *.c.youtube.com addresses, including when one of the *.c.youtube.com accesses another *.c.youtube.com server. Virtually all other requests from youtube.com can safely be kept out of your whitelist.

Re:Ads (2)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#43641651)

This. I wondered why people were complaining about ads before YouTube videos as I never got them. Adblock just transparently makes them disappear. Same goes for ads in Facebook, Google search results, etc...

Re:Ads (4, Insightful)

dunezone (899268) | about a year ago | (#43642571)

Because if everyone started using Adblock these websites would disappear or force people into a subscription. A large portion of their operating costs are supported by the advertisements that Adblock will block.

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642835)

Leech. I suppose you steal cable as well, don't you.

Re:Ads (1, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43641235)

If you look at Hulu's gross income as a company vs # of subscribers times the subscription cost, you'd be paying A LOT of money to not see ads. Hulu is basically a miniature TV channel where the per use cost is low and the ad revenues are everything. Netflix is like a horrible business plan that only picks up worthless, awful movies and horribly outdated TV shows then throws in one mega hit once in a while to attempt to impress people. Really, neither work. At $1.99 instead of Netflix prices, Youtube cannot possibly afford to offer anything of value.

Re:Ads (4, Funny)

JWW (79176) | about a year ago | (#43641349)

Yeah, youtube has nothing that anyone wants to watch. They ought to just shut it down already, its just a wasteland with no viable content at all.....

Re:Ads (4, Insightful)

dzfoo (772245) | about a year ago | (#43642183)

I think he meant it has nothing that anybody wants to pay to watch. It's popular right now because it's free, but cat videos may not pay the hosting service by themselves.

Re:Ads (1)

jeffy210 (214759) | about a year ago | (#43642353)

Yeah, youtube has nothing that anyone wants to watch. They ought to just shut it down already, its just a wasteland with no viable content at all.....

Can't tell if troll, sarcastic or informative....

Re:Ads (1)

Teppy (105859) | about a year ago | (#43641393)

Yeah, how much? I'd bet my time is worth far more than the ad revenue they get from me. For instance, Super Bowl ads this year averaged $4M/minute to reach an audience of 111M viewers. So that's $4.34/hour/viewer. For the Super Bowl. So let's assume the cat-video-watching audience is worth more than the Super Bowl watching audience. For my $2/month subscription I'd be able to skip 25 minutes of solid ads. Again, no-brainer, at least for me.

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641373)

pay 2 usd per month to me, and ill update your hosts file by hand to block those ads :D

wholly organic handmade hosts files for sale to those idi... less able folks...

*SMUG*

Re:Ads (5, Insightful)

Xemu (50595) | about a year ago | (#43641507)

I'd definitely pay $2/month to remove the damn ads. Same goes for Hulu - why don't they have this option?

It will go the same way as cable. First you pay $2/month to remove the ads. Then you pay $4,$8,$16 and then they put the ads back in as well.

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641529)

It sure worked for the cable industry. Subscription service: no ads!

Re:Ads (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43641755)

Youtube has advertising? Dang - I didn't know that. I just opened my Youtube home page. Black Mambas, funniest racist commercial, DDG gunnery exercise, stupid motorcycle riders, Bagram air crash, Arab Olympics fail, Thanatamersis, Nixie Pixel, Hippo destroys lion pride - - - Tons of stuff, but no advertisements. Maybe advertisers don't support Netgear routers that have been flashed or something? Here, have a nice Tomato, prepared by Toastman!

Re:Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641855)

Because Google makes more money from the ads than they ever would from subscriptions.

Re:Ads (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43642205)

Interestingly some platforms don't support ads, such as my Panasonic smart TV. It never displays any advertising at all, and I doubt it will ever be "fixed".

Someone needs to come up with a working ad-blocker for the Android YouTube app.

Re:Ads (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year ago | (#43642415)

You had the option with Hulu Plus when it first came out. Then Hulu decided to backtrack after 2 months and put the ads back in ... You seriously can't trust the corrupt companies ...

Re:Ads (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43642433)

I'd pay $2/mo to get rid of all the "featured" panels on the interface and all the juvenile crap from teenage morons that cater to a massive mouth-breathing audience of children (I keep seeing shit from guys named Fred and Tobuscus and Pewdiepie and other crap all the time). For that matter, dump all the "boobs and brain-dead response videos" crap and I'll definitely pay $2/mo for what's left.

I primarily watch stuff like lectures from Stanford, hardware demos, high end hardware builds being benchmarked, etc. Yet, what do they keep spamming me with? Fucking idiot teenagers spending 20 minutes showing you how to do your makeup or spending ten minutes showing you everything they just bought at the mall (seriously, this is apparently a whole genre of videos now).

How can a company with such a claim to targeted advertising now get this shit right?

Re:Ads (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642723)

The mating call of the entitled narcissist.

Nooope (0)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year ago | (#43641095)

I don't even post comments on youtube ever since they made the google plus thing a requirement. No way i'm ever going to pay for freaking cat videos. Youtube was different because it gave a medium for anyone to have videos put up. Paying for it is kind of going against the grain of what youtube really is. I suppose the subscription service is more along the lines of netflix and hulu (none of which are available in australia, as far as i know). I guess google sees that as potential advertising space.

Re:Nooope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641417)

Paying for it is kind of going against the grain of what youtube really is.

I know what you mean, I pay for a few streaming services already but at first glance it kinda feels at odds with what youtube has meant to the masses.

What I suspect is happening is rather than go into competition with netflix or hulu's market directly youtube is angling to do something that fits them better and move from an "anybody can host videos" to "anybody can sell videos" model. That is already in line with their place as a medium for everyone, the fact content companies have to use youtube as a platform just for the exposure it offers, and the idea people already can and do make a living off of youtube ads alone. Not everyone that wants to sell their tiny operation's video content can be like Giant Bomb and actually get users to do it on their own website.

Re:Nooope (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year ago | (#43642805)

Who exactly is making a living off of YouTube ads? I have an account and see the rates. That $3 from ads over a few months will go real far....

Re:Nooope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641589)

Why, because you thought the conversations on Youtube used to be of such high quality?

Re:Nooope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641713)

Youtube was different because it gave a medium for anyone to have videos put up. Paying for it is kind of going against the grain of what youtube really is.

Google doesn't CARE what "YouTube really is." Seriously, they don't get it. They saw popularity and moved in to translate it into dollar signs.

I wouldn't pay a thin dime for YouTube unless they:

1) Remove all pre-roll ads and pop-over ads - keep the banner ads, but put them off to the side of the video
2) Remove the Google log-in connection so that my YouTube account is completely separate from my Google tracking.. er, browsing
3) Never prevent anyone in the world from watching any video that has been offered to the public
4) Never remove audio from any video at the behest of the RIAA
5) Never take down short, fair-use movie clips or parody clips at the behest of MPAA
6) Fix the fucking search, sort, and related video functions

Of course, they will never do these things, so if YouTube is not free, I have no reason to put up with that crap.

Re:Nooope (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year ago | (#43642831)

They will pester you about using your "real name", but a Google Plus account or using your name is NOT required to comment.

Everything copyrighted ends up on YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641107)

So I imagine there will be a paid channel, and then a rotating supply of that same content elsewhere on YouTube for free?

Re:Everything copyrighted ends up on YouTube (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#43641165)

Well, if you insist on being cynical isn't it just as likely that youtube will simultaneously roll out vastly improved software to scan for and remove copyrighted movies. But only if you submit your copyrighted movie for their analysis (and rental) first.

I mean, that's if you insist on being as cynical as possible.

Re:Everything copyrighted ends up on YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641803)

Wow, your bar for "cynical as possible" is set rather low.

bring the content first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641139)

and then we can talk about prices. Don't offer the subscription when there's nothing worth paying for on there.

Great Content (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43641185)

This service will 'bring even more great content to YouTube

That made me laugh. "Great content on Youtube" is today's latest oxymoron.

Re:Great Content (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43641377)

If you know where to look, there's lots of great content on YouTube. Personally, I enjoy watching Matt Chat [youtube.com], Lazy Game Reviews [youtube.com], and Classic Game Room HD [youtube.com], more than anything on TV. If you're a smart person who wants to share your passion with the world, YouTube is a much better place to do that than any television network.

Re:Great Content (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43641697)

If you know where to look, there's lots of great content on YouTube. Personally, I enjoy watching Matt Chat [youtube.com], Lazy Game Reviews [youtube.com], and Classic Game Room HD [youtube.com], more than anything on TV.

Yes, I suppose this is true, if you have a very loose definition of "great".

Re:Great Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642127)

Yes, let's talk about "great"
I don't know about you but I've given up on broadcast and cable TV. Not because I don't like TV, but because 99.95% of the shit shoveled on to those mediums is pure audiovisual garbage. You can cherry pick a handful of well produced shows worth watching, but once you do you'll realize that they would not be enough to populate one TV channel, let alone hundreds.

So yes, the stuff you find on youtube is damn great. Compared to vapid sitcoms, disgusting and frankly morally repugnant reality TV, propaganda shock entertainment sold as 'news', much of youtube is fucking Shakespeare. And it's free.

You really could cut all broadcast TV down to one channel for entertainment, and a handful of channels for sports coverage. (Though sports commentary shows are questionable, and pro sports in general are tribal child-indoctrination money grabs too)

Re:Great Content (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43642139)

True, you're not going to see Ken Burns or Neil DeGrasse Tyson level quality out of Youtube. But you can easily meet or exceed the quality of whatever is on basic cable at the moment 90% of the time. That may not be "great", but it's nothing to sneeze at either.

Re:Great Content (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a year ago | (#43641919)

My thoughts exactly, especially with young children. My 4 year old loves some of the things I have found on you tube for him. There is a danish guy who works as an operating engineer and has a number of good quality hi def videos of machines working on construction sites. Toss in some videos made by companies that produce heavy machines as well as some videos of various obscure races (hill climbs, mud bogging, etc) and he loves it. These are things that are rare or unheard of on even cable TV with however many channels it has. I was actually surprised at the quality of the heavy equipment videos which are basically advertisements but still are more informative than most things on the subject like the 1/2 hour video trying to sell you a tunnel boring machine while they explain all the neat features and how theirs works.

Re:Great Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641447)

98% is likely crap, but I have found many good youtube clips that were useful to me.
This one comes to mind as I needed help to debug one of my machines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSyTmyZAxM [youtube.com] A lot of people put a lot of work into their videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/mjlorton?feature= [youtube.com]
Also I like to see info on PV og heating informations. How to maintain my AC amount other stuff.
Now it is still Youtube so there's a good chance that what people say are wrong and you do need to find a second source but it is still a great source of inspiration and I have a lot of projects in and around the house.
It is all a matter of what you search for.

Plenty of great, stolen content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642339)

If I want a song or see my favorite clip from a show, YouTube rarely lets me down.

Hope this comes to the rest of the world as well (1)

fezzzz (1774514) | about a year ago | (#43641255)

To use Netflix, we need to pay $5 a month for a proxy redirection service, so I hope Youtube keeps the rest of the world in mind in their target market.

Youtube could potentially dominate all other video (5, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | about a year ago | (#43641277)

I think that Google first proved that they are capable of delivering pretty 1080p video without stuttering, while leaving you the option for 720p if your internet or playback device can't handle 1080p. We'll see what content they will be offering, but I'm pretty sure about one thing: People are comfortable with Youtube as a video delivery system. You can bet that there will be living room devices that will seamlessly treat your subscribed Youtube channels as regular TV channels. Hopefully, future Youtube Android apps will allow you to pre-buffer the premium content so that you can watch it even when you don't have a good connection, for example, on a bus. If some of their subscriptions were things like Discovery Channel, ESPN and Comedy Central, how many people would drop their cable TV altogether? If these channels were on premium Youtube, the living room experience of watching them would be undiminished compared to cable TV, and all kinds of new options for VOD and watching on portable devices would open up. If Google does this right, the only people that will continue subscribing to cable TV will be luddites who can't be bothered to make Youtube work in their living room.

Re:Youtube could potentially dominate all other vi (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43641647)

Oh that's a good idea. Your favourite shows could load themselves automatically when they are released each week, so you come home from work and whatever is ready is all set to go without any interaction from yourself. Pick whatever you want to watch or leave it for later, very convenient.

Re:Youtube could potentially dominate all other vi (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43642241)

My ISP (Virgin Media) actually copes better with 1080p because they cache it inside their network. 720p often stutters because it is uncached. Unfortunately some devices don't let you select 1080p over 720p, such as my phone. It makes sense because the phone's screen is "only" 720p, but they didn't count on Virgin being crap.

Re:Youtube could potentially dominate all other vi (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year ago | (#43642461)

Except that they haven't proven that with their NorthWest servers at all. And yes, it is their servers that are having issues.

Meh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641423)

I could live without Youtube, pity Google thinks we can't.

Youtube streaming sucks. (5, Informative)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#43641449)

I'm on a 50 mb/sec internet connection and can't stream youtube movies above 360p without the movie stopping every couple of minutes due to buffer underrun. I've no issues with amazon prime, hulu or netflix movies. I don't know why this only happens with youtube. I don't see why I'd be paying $1.99/month.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641513)

Blacklist your ISP's local mirrors.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642123)

^This^

This is new. Been hearing about mirrors being the throttle for the last 2-3 months now. You would figure the mirrors would be sweet (with the ISP wanting to make sure you use them). Instead they suck. People have had some pretty good success messing with their hosts files to get better rates.

If google would make the content more cacheable instead of playing all sorts of name games with the dynamic html fed to us they could help out. Instead the dynamic html is pretty much 100% not cacheable.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641563)

I would take this up with your ISP rather than blame youtube servers. No problems for me streaming 1080p on 19Mb/s.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641601)

I'm on a 50 mb/sec internet connection and can't stream youtube movies above 360p without the movie stopping every couple of minutes due to buffer underrun. I've no issues with amazon prime, hulu or netflix movies. I don't know why this only happens with youtube. I don't see why I'd be paying $1.99/month.

That's strange, I can only stream 240p without cuts, but I'm on 2mbps. On 50mbps you should be able to stream 1080p with no problem.
Have you contacted your ISP ? probably they don't support youtube caching.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43641795)

Netflix and others use what's called a CDN, content delivery network. they have servers inside the ISP's networks with the content. you never actually stream from the internet.

YouTube is all inside Google's infrastructure so anything you stream from youtube you use your ISP's internet backbone. I think Amazon is the same way since its glitchy for me as well.

this is why i stream all my content from Netflix and itunes. they use a CDN and i get the best quality and performance.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641847)

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642503)

That nonsense has been debunked numerous times. Reddit latched on to the "workaround" [reddit.com], but if you actually read the full thread -- not skim it -- you will find intelligent network-savvy folks commenting on its idiocy. The person who came up with this "workaround" doesn't understand things like DNS load balancing, anycast, and other methodologies Youtube deploys (including back-end stuff) to accomplish load balancing. You might also be surprised to know Youtube's Flash applet (not sure about the HTML 5 stuff) has rate-limiting implemented in it as well (really, it does).

Here are two forums threads I've been involved with now where in both cases asking people to step up to the plate and provide hard proof (specifically of TWC implementing some kind of throttling) resulted in them admitting the supposed "workaround" doesn't work at all, not to mention contains references to netblocks that have nothing to do with Youtube, and netblocks of the wrong size (based on ARIN WHOIS, rather than what's advertised on the Internet via BGP):

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28102912-Heads-up-guys.new-trick-to-eliminate-Youtube-throttling- [dslreports.com]
http://www.linksysinfo.org/index.php?threads/youtube-loading-issues-possible-solution.68493/ [linksysinfo.org]

I wish that Mitch Ribar guy would take down that blog post already.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a year ago | (#43642015)

I had a 6 mb/sec connection and could stream 720p without issue from you tube and if I let it buffer up for a bit could do 1080p without issue. Then my old ISP started mucking with stuff and I had all sorts of goofey errors like being unable to connect to DNS servers sometimes, and connection time outs. Dumped them like a bad habit and went with the other option in town who seems to at the moment be offering better service quality.

Try different DNS settings (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642069)

A common trick used by content providers is to have the same DNS entry resolve to different IP addresses in different parts of the internet so that you'll get content from a sever close to you.

This doesn't seem to be working out for you.

I suggest trying a different DNS provider and see what happens. Try using google's own DNS if you're not (set your DNS to 8.8.8.8) or, if you are, try using the ISPs.
You'll probably need to flush your DNS in the operating system and probably restart your browser to clear its own DNS caches before this has any effect (on a mac you can flush your dns cache with the sudo dscacheutil -flushcache command from the terminal)

Re:Try different DNS settings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642839)

++ to this.

In my case I improved my streaming performance by moving away from Google DNS to my ISP's DNS servers.

I ran Google's DNS in my home for years (8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4) but over the last year I noticed major problems with streaming content from providers such as Netflix, iTunes, etc. I switched to my ISP's DNS servers and things were immediately faster. I did not benchmark YouTube after making the change, but my iTunes download speeds went from embarrassing to happy happy happy, and I have not experienced any more buffering.

Google mentions this CDN-related behavior in their DNS FAQ:
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq#cdn

Also, happy happy happy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1kFZIYiAs

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (2)

Monkey-Man2000 (603495) | about a year ago | (#43642293)

If you're in the EU, and specifically using France's Freebox [arstechnica.com], the ISPs are basically are at war with Google and neither Google or the ISPs want to pay for the pipes required to access Youtube comfortably. I have Free, and during peak times, there is definitely a slowdown in Youtube.

the psychology of it all (2)

schlachter (862210) | about a year ago | (#43642303)

Paying even a trivial fee like $1.99/month will lead users to claim higher levels of satisfaction with the service which is good for Google. It's been shown empirically over and over that we come to value those things which we pay for more than those which are free.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (1)

Cammi (1956130) | about a year ago | (#43642465)

Are you in the Northwest? This is very common with the Youtube servers in that area.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (3, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43642601)

It's probably your ISP's fault. I know my ISP, Virgin Media, breaks Youtube.

What tends to happen is that the ISP notices a lot of traffic coming from YouTube. So they call up Google and get some caching servers installed inside their network just to handle YouTube video. All YouTube traffic is intercepted and redirected to these caches and for about five minutes all is well. Then YouTube traffic doubles in a year but the ISP makes no effort to upgrade its caches and everything grinds to a halt.

Re:Youtube streaming sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642605)

8mb/sec and can do 1080p without batting an eyelid. It sounds like a YOU problem rather than a THEM problem.

Quality? (1)

jason777 (557591) | about a year ago | (#43641523)

Lately, most youtube video do not properly play on my high speed FIOS connection. Most wont even start, or if they do if fail to buffer along the way, even at 240p. And the worst is when the video does play, many now have LONG ads within them. I'm talking like 2 and a half minutes. Ok MAYBE I'll sit through a half minute, but longer than that is not gonna work. Why would I pay for this?

I've seen 90 minute ads in movie theaters (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43641849)

And the worst is when the video does play, many now have LONG ads within them. I'm talking like 2 and a half minutes.

And I went to the movie theater in 1989 and saw a 90-minute ad for the NES [wikipedia.org].

But seriously, any video ad on YouTube that is longer than 30 seconds should have "click to skip" after the first 5 seconds.

Re:I've seen 90 minute ads in movie theaters (1)

Jarmihi (2589777) | about a year ago | (#43642529)

But seriously, any video ad on YouTube that is longer than 30 seconds should have "click to skip" after the first 5 seconds.

They do. I believe it's a 15-second mandatory; any longer and it's "skip after five seconds."

Re:Quality? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641949)

The same damn thing has been happening with me on copper wire ADSL.
Videos take like 5-10 seconds to even start buffering, sometimes longer, and they buffer slowly up to a point.
They buffer at a sporadic speed at best, which often results in constantly interruptions in so many videos.

It only started happening in like the past few months or so.
And I have forced 240p on most times because most videos are unworth higher quality, but christ, even then it still happens.
Happens at all speeds. With and without extension.

Also, that new profile page is actually terrible. I don't overreact like most idiots do to interface changes, but holy horrible homepage. It is a clusterfuck and less useful than the others.
And where the hell are the dynamic pages? Bring those back, static pages are terrible. I have this super advanced browser that could probably toast bread via my GPU, use the damn thing.
The new sidebar thing on the left is a good example, nice and simple. That was a step in the right direction.

It makes me think Google just hire retards these days. Where did all the smart people in Google go? Where are the people that actually know how to monetize services instead of the halfwits cancelling useful products like Reader and iGoogle because "we are stupid and don't know how to advertise if our life depended on it."
Where are the actual decent coders who don't make buggy, broken and stupidly outdated code and webpages?
Whether it is Youtube being so horribly broken, or Picasa seriously corrupting its own database because it crashed when saving. How the hell can a program corrupt its own files these days? How stupid a file format can you write where it can lead to corruption that trivially?
Never installing that crap again, I'll write my own. Absolutely hopeless depending on them to write something that won't horribly die or run sluggish. (including Chrome as well now, what the hell happened there? Admittedly that is open source based)

Re:Quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43642021)

your ISP is fucking with the datastream. as they said above, use a third party DNS server and blacklist the ISP's mirrors.

YouFLiX (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43641959)

na thanks i already have bittorrent oh wait did i say that outloud

Get rid of Adobe Flash Player... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43643073)

...then maybe we can consider subscription fees.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...