@mgcarley: I still don't agree with you. I just did a little experiment. I tried a video on a spectranet connection. While I was under the impression that it was a 4Mbps line, it could be that it's been upgraded, as it's a home office sort of setup there. It's minimum 4Mbps, possible much more. Anyway, the video started immediately. The full 350MB video was loaded / downloaded before I was even maybe 20% my way into the video. No buffering, no hiccups. I came back home, about 30 minutes later. Tried the same video on my Airtel 4Mbps, and while it started playing after a minute or so, I checked my firewall to see that my speed was not going beyond 100 -150 KB/s. (I didn't want to see the same video twice so didn't run it through to check when it would stop and need to buffer). But I think this showed that the same video on the same site, within roughly the same point of time was loading far far faster on a spectranet connection, than on my Airtel connection. If the problem was with the site, route etc. etc. then the results in the two places should not be that dramatically different. I still think there's something especially wrong with Airtel, whether it's routing, traffic shaping etc. I don't know. I know that a couple of months ago I didn't have to give this topic a second's thought. I would just press play on most sites, and the videos would play immediately and would play through without any need of buffering. Now it's very rare that this happens.
Also, here's a screenshot of how the speed typical moves when I am trying to see a video. First it picks up to the 400 - 600 KB/s range (and gets me excited
ride
and then it drops to the 20-30 KB/s range (and I am like meh :disillusionment
and then it goes to the 0 - 1 KB/s range and chills there for a while
angry ()
, and maybe it will go up again ( and do the same thing) or maybe note and will decide to take a nap in the B/s range. Honest question: Is this normal? It doesn't seem so to me. (I don't you don't get a constant speed while downloading ever, but this kind of fluctuation seems absurd to me!). Here's the screenshot:
I still maintain that it's the site, and the reason for this is thus: the sites in question probably connect better to
Tata than Bharti. As I was saying in my previous post(s), it's all about the connectivity.
Bharti connects (basically only) at London. Tata connects globally, like, all over the place. Really. And since Spectranet buys a whole lot more bandwidth from Tata than they do from Bharti, the performance will be much better - as it will be on any ISP buying Tata bandwidth compared to that of an ISP buying Bharti bandwidth - including Airtel itself.
Because of this primary difference, the routing (and efficiency thereof) are going to be very different, which matches my experience of routing via different networks of late.
The perfect example can be seen by those who follow me on Twitter: up until recently I was ranting about Vodafone's shoddy speedtest results? They peer badly, and certain links are overloaded. The solution was pretty easy: we switched our routing to Vodafone from Bharti to Tata and my pings to Vodafone Mumbai went from 40ms to 5ms.
Do I even need to say more?