Netflix ISP Speed Index

Does anyone have such an index for ISP's in respect to Youtube.com?<p>Idk whether its a routing issue or a bandwidth cap issue but with ATT Uverse youtube is constantly buffer with the video quality set to 720p. Regular speed tests show reliable 12Mb/3Mb bandwidth which should be well enough to stream a 720p video.

Netflix (I know some of you are here),<p>Would you consider including sonic.net. I realize they are local/regional to the greater Bay area, but as one of the first ISP's to offer (trial) gigabit speed, and at a reasonable price, I think they deserve a nod.<p>In fact, as I wrote the above, I expanded on this thought. I'd like to see the Chattanooga high speed service mentioned, and perhaps some others. This could be a good message that higher performance Internet -- other than just Google; not that I'm knocking Google on this -- <i>is</i> possible and <i>is</i> offered by some more progressive providers.<p>And that it's this <i>real</i> competition that will drag the rest of us forward into a better network (and so, Netflix) experience.<p>Thanks for your consideration

Why is that Netflix is SO much faster for me than YouTube. I am on a shitty ~5Mbps DSL connection so on YouTube I have to watch 240p (360p on a good day) video to get it to load in anywhere close to real time. On Netflix, my video goes to what looks like 480p-720p quality within the first minute of my watching and the initial 240p-360p quality video loads nearly instantly. Is it just that Netflix has a smaller library and has more caching available for popular content, or are they doing something totally different with video delivery?

I find it interesting how google fiber not only raised America's bar by ~25% but has been steadily destroying their own record month after month. <a href="http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/results/usa/graph" rel="nofollow">http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/results/usa/graph</a><p>I hope that chart makes some ISPs fearful enough to start innovating.

Seems oddly low. I know the US is notorious for low speeds, but 3.35 Mbps for Google fiber? Does their measurement actually measure what I intuitively think measures?<p>I've used two different ISPs in recent years and both sustained 10+ Mbps over long periods of time with their mid range tiers, and had basic tiers offering 3 - 5 Mbps which I believe performed as rated.<p>While I know that most of the country is likely on slow Internet, I have a really hard time seeing how the numbers end up lower than ~5 Mbps avg overall unless the whole situation is way worse than I ever suspected and that large portions of the sample were either mobile users or rural.

I don't know about other ISPs, but Comcast offers several different rates for their cable Internet. But the Netflix chart only shows one line. So what is this really reporting? If Comcast is faster than competitor Foo, is that just because a higher percentage of Comcast's subscribers are on a better plan?

Am I the only one who think this is a cheap shot from Netflix? They are putting preassure on the ISP's to host Netflix servers for free, and when some of them dont want to do that Netflix tries to give them bad reputation by displaying this statistics (where the ones that dont host netflix servers will get a low score). If Netflix was concerned about ther customers video quality they would PAY the ISP's to host their servers like everybody else. Now they are just trying to push their costs to the ISP's and make it hard for competitors to deliver the same quality for the same cost, unless they also manage to "force" the ISP's to host their servers for free...

Genius work from Netflix. They have the data, why not display it? Removes blame from them for poor video performance. We all don't think we get what we pay for on broadband, now there is industry support for that. These rankings will shame companies into providing better access. Minimally, they will prioritize Netflix traffic.<p>Good for the community, giving users some tools to vote with their dollars. Good for Netflix either way.

I keep seeing stories about how the broadband subscribers in the U.S. pay more for less service. We might pay more, but our service seems to fall close to the average for the companies shown here.<p>Does anyone have numbers for Korea (South), Japan, etc?

It would be nice if I could browse the long-tail. I'd love to see how Sonic.net and MonkeyBrains compare to AT&#38;T UVerse, for instance.

1. It's curious that Canada isn't included. Netflix does streaming in Canada.<p>2. The UI on graph view Could be better if there was a "disable all"/"enable all" feature. Parts of the graph were crowded enough that I had to click on all of the ISPs (in the US data) to disable them, and do comparisons with a smaller subset of ISPs.

The interesting thing that I'm taking from this is that The United States is not nearly as far behind other countries (average bandwidth wise) as some would have you believe.<p>In fact, our average bandwidth seemed to be about exactly the same as the other counties.

I'm a little worried about this. What's going to stop, e.g., a low-ranked provider from prioritizing Netflix packets above other packets? This seems like an unintentional network-neutrality backdoor of sorts.

I'm with virginmedia and apparently they have infastructure that allows me to stream from netflix at 1080p but I'm not allowed to make use of it because I'm not running Windows 8. wtf?

I zoomed out to 67%. Large fonts are really great for texts, but not for lists where you want to get an overview.<p>Edit: And Google Fiber an average speed of only 3mbps? Something seems wrong here.

That's pretty damning for Virgin Media, given they are cable so aren't limited by weak ADSL connections, and their "basic" packages are now supposedly 30Mbit/s.

<a href="http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/canada" rel="nofollow">http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/canada</a><p>404.

Canada's internet speeds are hilariously bad. That's probably why they're not on the list.