Firefox integrated with YouTube's HTML5 player
Firefox integrated with YouTube's HTML5 player
Haha, that's frustrating! You're in the UK and have noticed slow internet speeds, right? The standard fiber connection tops out at 80Mbps, which is pretty limited. Unlimited plans were available before, but now they seem rare. Why would anyone expect better service here compared to other countries?
I possess a 30Mbps connection, yet here you see 200Mbps. Although it seems like a solid offer, the cost isn’t worth it. And since it’s fiber-based, it really varies by location. For residential use, you’d pay around $125, but this includes TV as well—phone service with an ISP adds more. In Quebec, you must also factor in at least a 15% tax on these expenses. Also worth noting is your data limit; it’s better than 500GB, but that’s the standard phone plan (no caller ID) and the basic TV package (about 4-5 channels). This covers mostly news, some FM radio, a few channels, weather updates, and so on. You could argue you’d be able to stream everything online, but at this point, you’re spending on TV you don’t use. I also overlooked installation charges.
Your situation in Canada is unique compared to other provinces or regions, even in major cities. The main reasons are: there’s almost no competition. Typically, you have two large companies—usually the bigger one leases the smaller ones’ networks. While their prices are slightly lower, they charge extra for equipment, hidden fees, and costly installations. So any savings are minimal. If they force you to use the same provider that throttles speeds during certain times, it’s a real downside.
The “last mile” connection to your home isn’t fiber everywhere. Setting up that infrastructure is extremely expensive. We shouldn’t forget the challenges of building in different structures and the fact that many cables are buried underground due to weather conditions. This leads to higher costs.
In cities with larger areas, like London, you’d need more cabling to reach everyone, which adds to the expense. Because of this, infrastructure is naturally pricier. Canada’s vast size means reaching remote areas or distant cities often starts at just 5Mbps. Until ISPs upgrade to fiber, options remain limited.
Big cities in Canada usually have less competition than here, even with two providers (often Cable and DSL). This results in slower speeds and less attractive plans. The cellular sector faces similar issues—government attempts to boost competition by allocating spectrum to smaller players, but big companies just absorb the deals and merge everything under their control. With such massive profits, these moves barely help their bottom line.
The page works perfectly without HTML5 enabled, as seen at that URL. Where have I come across this tale before? Well, I was facing the same situation as you until February of this year—except for the data limits part. I reside on an island in the UK, and honestly, it surprises me we actually have any fiber connections. There are only a handful of about 20 locations with fiber running in the main city area (most people think of a small town or village). The sole ISP there is BT, and everything is managed by BT Openreach—no other options available. Unless you switch to satellite, which means giving up on smooth gaming, even then speeds are limited to around 20Mbps. We don’t have cable either; it just isn’t present here. Virgin Media reaches much of the mainland UK, offering speeds similar to cable at up to 150Mbps. For those who can afford it—£500 or more per month—a BT leased line is an option, ranging from 1Mbps to 10Gbps depending on infrastructure. Considering our weather, everything runs underground, which makes sense! To be fair, before last year’s start, the fastest speeds anyone in my county could achieve were 6-7Mbps. Since then, speeds in the main town have climbed to about 18Mbps. Now, fiber is being installed and can reach up to 80Mbps. That’s assuming copper lines are used—most of ours are aluminum, so you get roughly 70% of the potential. Hence, I’m only seeing around 56Mbps instead of the 72 I was promised. I should have gotten 78. It’s not the same everywhere; some areas still struggle with less than 1Mbps and no better options. Still, an unlimited plan is always an option.
Confirming HTML5 support is active and using the correct codec. Firefox runs on system OS codecs, not just the browser.
You can set up a particular HTML5 video codec by configuring your media player settings directly. Since you're using VLC on Windows 7, you'll need to adjust the codec options in VLC itself rather than installing additional software. Check VLC's documentation for the exact steps to enable the desired codec.
Using Firefox 39.0a2, YouTube HTML5 has performed well for me (including smooth 60fps) for a long time. I recall a similar problem a few months back, but it’s now resolved. Refer to the guide I created for enabling 60fps YouTube in Firefox to confirm your browser supports it. You might also want to turn off hardware acceleration—see this article for details: http://lifehacker.com/disable-firefoxs-h...-749344037. Lastly, when you navigate to about:addons or press Ctrl+Shift+A, the plugins section should show the Open H.264 video codec plugin installed and set to always run. It usually installs automatically, though it may not appear if there’s an issue.
The plugin functions perfectly and remains active as intended. Since hardware acceleration was enabled, I turned it off to test its impact. According to the YouTube HTML5 page, everything appears correctly configured. I recently watched a 16-minute video, which previously always failed, and it ran smoothly this time. Thank you very much! This issue has bothered me for years—being able to watch videos properly is a relief. EDIT: Disabling hardware acceleration resolved the problem.