Virgin Media to dump neutrality and target BitTorrent users

[n0c0ntr0l]

Originally Posted by TheDon

No, the best thing for them is to have customers that are profitable, and not customers that aren't. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Light users are, they can give light users a contention of 100:1 and they won't notice. "Normal" users as well (normal being average), can deal nicely with a contention of 50:1. Medium users can deal nicely with contentions of 20:1. These are all profitable.

Heavy users though, if you had an ISP full of just heavy users you'd have to give them a contention of around 2:1, 5:1 at best, and this IS NOT profitable.

Now if you have a small fraction of heavy users, it's not really an issue, sure they aren't profitable, but the profit you make from the other users outweighs this and subsidises them (this is the point Be, O2, Sky, etc are at now). But when the number of heavy users increases you're suddenly making less and less money, and there's a point where you start losing money in providing the service (this is where those ISPs are heading). The job of an ISP is to prevent it getting to this point, either by disconnecting heavy users (which is what happened all the time with ISP's using BT wholesale ADSL) or shaping to ensure that this point can't be reached. Disconnecting is bad press, so the thing of choice is to shape and try to squeeze the heavy users usage down and keep costs at workable levels.

I think you'll find that Be and sky have a ton of heavy users at the moment. Most people who could change have changed. Having heard of the green grass in their quarter. It did impact speeds at one point but they did what virgin just refuse to do. They upgraded the netwrokd. All of it. Be even did it twice. They did it when the O2 people came over and they did it all over again when the network began to show signs of straining and people began to complain. You won't see VM doing that.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by TheDon

I'm not denying they are using shaping, infact my post said that all it shows is their shaping prioritises HTTP over torrents, which says that they ARE using it.

Well actually, you said they don't limit for the sake of limiting, and I said yes they do on my ISP and I know they do using DPI. Then you tried to tell that no they don't, and my outline of the situation only proved that QoS was being utilised. But whatever.

Originally Posted by TheDon

What about you? What's your experience with QoS and DPI? Other than "ZOMG MY TORRENTS ARE TEH SLOW!"?

Yes, that's it! Suffice to say that while you have hands on experience of ISP throttling, I also have an understanding of networking reservation control mechanisms.

Originally Posted by TheDon

Once again, nothing from what you states shows there is any free bandwidth available on the network, only that HTTP takes priority over torrents. Now, there COULD be free bandwidth, it'd be a dumb as hell setup to just blanket limit any form of traffic whilst there's bandwidth available, but what you said doesn't PROVE there is.

If HTTP traffic was prioritised at 6pm (or torrent traffic deprioritised) then my torrent speed would vary over the 7 hour period based on the utilisation of the network - above and below 40KBs.

In your scenario of QoS, there would be more people using HTTP (or any other type of traffic) around 6pm than at 12:30am. Therefore, my torrent speed should be slower at 6pm than at 12:30am.

The fact that it does not move off the 40KBs mark shows that it is being throttled to a certian rate. So there IS limiting for the sake of limiting, and it IS targeted at Bittorrent. Anyways, this is my last post as I have better things to do, and shouldn't you be watching SNMP graphs.

[Bonglet]

Vm would rather spend money on headlines and paying over paid actors mega money for crap ads than any service improvments - its a well documented fact now that they spend a few thousand on the network and millions on advertising.

Take a look at the amounts spent by virign media since the merger if you dont belive me - it borders on ridiculous then they still try and squeeze more blood from a stone when the blood got drained years ago.

Most of the users havent switched yet imho but they will soon then virign will see this year how great there ideas for superfasterslowpimpingproffileddata mother of all broadband are.

Your welcome to keep a historic note of this thread maybee should call it the death knell shout of vm

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by TheDon

No, the best thing for them is to have customers that are profitable, and not customers that aren't. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Berkett is trying to make them all profitable by imposing restrictions to slow it all down. and reduce bandwidth.

only problem is that he needs people who will agree to pay for such a product.

[SimonB79]

makes you wonder why they cant just introduce monthly data capping.... the more you pay the more ya get and that would sort the whole problem. ??

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by n0c0ntr0l

I think you'll find that Be and sky have a ton of heavy users at the moment. Most people who could change have changed. Having heard of the green grass in their quarter. It did impact speeds at one point but they did what virgin just refuse to do. They upgraded the netwrokd. All of it. Be even did it twice. They did it when the O2 people came over and they did it all over again when the network began to show signs of straining and people began to complain. You won't see VM doing that.

That isn't really fair. VM have done well over a thousand node splits in the past year. They do upgrade, whether it's enough is a different matter but to say that they do not is unfair.

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Frank

Well actually, you said they don't limit for the sake of limiting, and I said yes they do on my ISP and I know they do using DPI. Then you tried to tell that no they don't, and my outline of the situation only proved that QoS was being utilised. But whatever.

Yes, that's it! Suffice to say that while you have hands on experience of ISP throttling, I also have an understanding of networking reservation control mechanisms.

If HTTP traffic was prioritised at 6pm (or torrent traffic deprioritised) then my torrent speed would vary over the 7 hour period based on the utilisation of the network - above and below 40KBs.

In your scenario of QoS, there would be more people using HTTP (or any other type of traffic) around 6pm than at 12:30am. Therefore, my torrent speed should be slower at 6pm than at 12:30am.

The fact that it does not move off the 40KBs mark shows that it is being throttled to a certian rate. So there IS limiting for the sake of limiting, and it IS targeted at Bittorrent. Anyways, this is my last post as I have better things to do, and shouldn't you be watching SNMP graphs.

In a perfect world of a managed network the following would be the case:

1) No prioritisation until a network component nears congestion.
2) No deprioritisation, only upwards prioritisation of realtime and interactive traffic.
3) Management sufficient to avoid degredation of real time and interactive traffic only, maximising use of network resources by allowing customers to use as much traffic as the network can deal with at the time with no additional restraint. If the capacity is there no reason to not have it used, managing to an arbitrary limit is wasteful.

This is perfectly possible but not necessarily easy.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

Originally Posted by SimonB79

makes you wonder why they cant just introduce monthly data capping.... the more you pay the more ya get and that would sort the whole problem. ??

Because they would lose the ability to advertise as unlimited. With the ASA allowing anyone to advertise as unlimited who doesn't advertise a hard limit it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. This way they can advertise an unlimited service still.

[n0c0ntr0l]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

That isn't really fair. VM have done well over a thousand node splits in the past year. They do upgrade, whether it's enough is a different matter but to say that they do not is unfair.

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------



In a perfect world of a managed network the following would be the case:

1) No prioritisation until a network component nears congestion.
2) No deprioritisation, only upwards prioritisation of realtime and interactive traffic.
3) Management sufficient to avoid degredation of real time and interactive traffic only, maximising use of network resources by allowing customers to use as much traffic as the network can deal with at the time with no additional restraint. If the capacity is there no reason to not have it used, managing to an arbitrary limit is wasteful.

This is perfectly possible but not necessarily easy.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------



Because they would lose the ability to advertise as unlimited. With the ASA allowing anyone to advertise as unlimited who doesn't advertise a hard limit it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. This way they can advertise an unlimited service still.

You have a very good understanding of this. What's your take on the whole matter, cause so far all I have seen you do is let everyone know the information straight.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Sorry but that proves nothing other than their QoS is set up to prioritise HTTP downloads over torrents.The level of usage is constant throughout the day, however during the day the %age that p2p traffic uses on the network is squeezed as other uses increase.

No ISP wants idle capacity sitting there doing nothing.

<Snipped various other stuff>

It's a known and proven fact that Frank's ISP's wholesale provider, Bell Canada, has a fixed hard limit on certain types of traffic per client IP address. They certainly do have idle capacity sitting there doing nothing, as proven by various information they provided during a recent CRTC investigation.

I'd suggest that you Google CRTC Bell Canada before trying to make the above claims regarding what Frank does and does not see on his own ISP's network. His speeds drop like a cliff at a certain time, then go back up like a rocket at the same time very day, to the same speed every day, without fail.

---------- Post added at 16:59 ---------- Previous post was at 16:58 ----------

Originally Posted by n0c0ntr0l

You have a very good understanding of this. What's your take on the whole matter, cause so far all I have seen you do is let everyone know the information straight.

I've no take because I don't have enough information to give an informed take at this time. In the words of Sarah Palin 'I'll get back to you on that'.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by n0c0ntr0l

I think you'll find that Be and sky have a ton of heavy users at the moment. Most people who could change have changed. Having heard of the green grass in their quarter. It did impact speeds at one point but they did what virgin just refuse to do. They upgraded the netwrokd. All of it. Be even did it twice. They did it when the O2 people came over and they did it all over again when the network began to show signs of straining and people began to complain. You won't see VM doing that.

They have a fair amount, I wouldn't say a ton.

If VM refuse to upgrade the network how do we now have docsis 3 equipment in place? :p There's no doubt that some areas of the VM network fell behind at the end of the NTL/Blueyonder days, but just throwing money into network upgrades isn't going to solve all the problems, and there has been massive upgrades done over recent times.

But It's not just about upgrading the network, it's about having the ability to pay for the transit costs as well. You can have the greatest backhaul network in the world, but if your transit links are saturated you're screwed. There has to be a level where you stop throwing money at problems when you have no chance of recouping it. It's a simple problem of economics, there's only so much revenue you're getting, so only so much you can spend on these links, if the amount you need to spend to move the bandwidth offnet is greater than the amount you're getting from your customers, you're screwed and need to do something to reduce the amount of bandwidth needed.

Originally Posted by Frank

Well actually, you said they don't limit for the sake of limiting, and I said yes they do on my ISP and I know they do using DPI. Then you tried to tell that no they don't, and my outline of the situation only proved that QoS was being utilised. But whatever.

If they're limiting they generally have a reason, that reason generally being that if they didn't then they'd be unprofitable. I didn't try to tell you they don't, I just said that being able to open a http download at full speed didn't prove that bandwidth was available.

Originally Posted by Frank

Yes, that's it! Suffice to say that while you have hands on experience of ISP throttling, I also have an understanding of networking reservation control mechanisms.

If HTTP traffic was prioritised at 6pm (or torrent traffic deprioritised) then my torrent speed would vary over the 7 hour period based on the utilisation of the network - above and below 40KBs.

Maybe, it really depends on the level of traffic and what it was like before 6pm. There would obviously be a gradual ramp up in http traffic, but then it'll stay pretty steady until around 11 where it will then gradually drop off. You'll get some fluctuations but not massive ones.

Originally Posted by Frank

In your scenario of QoS, there would be more people using HTTP (or any other type of traffic) around 6pm than at 12:30am. Therefore, my torrent speed should be slower at 6pm than at 12:30am.

The fact that it does not move off the 40KBs mark shows that it is being throttled to a certian rate. So there IS limiting for the sake of limiting, and it IS targeted at Bittorrent. Anyways, this is my last post as I have better things to do,

See if you'd have said that before I'd have probably agreed with you that they've put an arbituary cap on it between certain times, but you didn't. All you said was that your torrents were slowed yet you could download at full speed through http, which is entirely more flimsy evidence and points to nothing but standard QoS.

Originally Posted by Frank

and shouldn't you be watching SNMP graphs.

Hell no. Quit that job a year ago as I was fed up of the crap pay long hours and awkward shift work (not to mention constantly having to justify the QoS settings to customers who all thought they paid for gaurenteed service) Now I do contract work on corporate network design and security, more pay for less work, means I can sit here posting on forums most the time instead!

Originally Posted by Gary L

Berkett is trying to make them all profitable by imposing restrictions to slow it all down. and reduce bandwidth.

only problem is that he needs people who will agree to pay for such a product.

Maybe. He is running a company with massive debt, so he's ofc going to want to try to make as much money as possible.

Obviously we'll have to wait to see how it'd be implemented, but my point is merely don't see it as an outright evil, because QoS is a very valid tool for ISPs that enables them to be run profitably without having the network slow down for most uses.

Maybe I just have a little more faith in him then some, but I can't see him commiting commercial suicide in search of higher profits, getting rid of STM and replacing it with shaping would IMO be 100x better. P2P is really the only thing that should get hit by shaping, everything else should be fine as you can peer for a hell of a lot less (in the realms of 10x) than your transit costs, so peering to the big download sites means you can offer higher bandwidth for the same cost, and you just need to shape the phobititively expensive transit links.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

<Snipped various other stuff>

It's a known and proven fact that Frank's ISP's wholesale provider, Bell Canada, has a fixed hard limit on certain types of traffic per client IP address. They certainly do have idle capacity sitting there doing nothing, as proven by various information they provided during a recent CRTC investigation.

I'd suggest that you Google CRTC Bell Canada before trying to make the above claims regarding what Frank does and does not see on his own ISP's network. His speeds drop like a cliff at a certain time, then go back up like a rocket at the same time very day, to the same speed every day, without fail.

Ah see, I was basing it on being an UK ISP, the American and Canadian ones... I wouldn't touch most with a barge pole, I can see why net neutrality is a big issue over there because they don't seem to have the same level of competiveness that drives against pratices like that as we do over here. UK ISPs though are generally pretty good with shaping. I can only think of one that is known to have hard limits on p2p traffic, and that's because it's a niche gaming ISP.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Ah see, I was basing it on being an UK ISP, the American and Canadian ones... I wouldn't touch most with a barge pole, I can see why net neutrality is a big issue over there because they don't seem to have the same level of competiveness that drives against pratices like that as we do over here. UK ISPs though are generally pretty good with shaping. I can only think of one that is known to have hard limits on p2p traffic, and that's because it's a niche gaming ISP.

I can think of a few. Tiscali, AOL, Carphone Warehouse just thinking of the first 3 that come to mind. It's far cheaper to use NBAR on your LNS or set fixed limits than to invest in more intelligent shaping hardware, especially where there are multiple network ingress and egress points and shaping on a per endpoint basis is trickier or you would be needing to have a dedicated LNS for each LTC group.

---------- Post added at 17:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by n0c0ntr0l

You have a very good understanding of this. What's your take on the whole matter, cause so far all I have seen you do is let everyone know the information straight.

I have a take. I'm not that fussed as I'll be using an unlimited, uncapped, unshaped DOCSIS 3 service at 120Mbit/s down, 10Mbit/s up for a similar price to the shaped, behavioural advertising included VM 50Mbit / 1.5Mbit (or 1.75 eventually 2.5Mbit/s) service.

EDIT: Oh very well. The potential Torrent throttling will likely be applied to upstream as each area's DOCSIS 3 service group will only have a single upstream available initially, and in some areas for the foreseeable future. The by far most likely course of events is that the upload throttling will come in at the same time as an upstream uplift to 2.5Mbit in order to reduce potential upstream overload. Serving a group of customers with 200Mbit downstream and 8.8Mbit or best case 27Mbit upstream doesn't make for a nice ratio if it only takes 3 / 8 customers uploading full whack, seeding a torrent for example, to degrade service for everyone else, 10, 20 and 50Mbit alike. This ratio will of course change and be variable depending on area and upstream spectrum / bandwidth availability but at least in some cases the bandwidth will be very asymmetrical.

[Bonglet]

Originally Posted by TheDon

They have a fair amount, I wouldn't say a ton.

If VM refuse to upgrade the network how do we now have docsis 3 equipment in place? :p There's no doubt that some areas of the VM network fell behind at the end of the NTL/Blueyonder days, but just throwing money into network upgrades isn't going to solve all the problems, and there has been massive upgrades done over recent times.

Can we see your factual evidence and or any proof of virgin media spending big money since the merger on the network?.

I did see a couple of thousand per year being spent on the oversubbed network but and a big but a few 30-40 million per advertising campaign (uma,samuel jackson to name a few) so where these big money upgrades are i've yet to see.

Not hard to work out spend less on false advertising (still no knuckles rapped by ofcom), stupid shaping and data mining of customers (still no knuckles rapped by govt) and more on your network and you and your LOYAL customers are the winner not hard to work out.

But then again some people just cant work it out and this will be there downfall.

Must just be about how much customer A is and Milk god virgin love there milk money.

[DG--]

Interesting reading this thread and some of the Anti-Bitorrent comments.

My opinion is that VM would absolutely not want shot of BT users as when the fastest connections become available, I would hazard a guess that a very high percentage of those taking it out are BT users, the rest are enthusiasts who may be quite noisey on here, but in reality they are few and far between.

I've always gone with their top product for this reason, but will be stopping now. I have no use for an ISP who is going to throttle BT.

Once all the "pirates" (aarrrhhh matey) go, VM will be left with a lightning fast network, but just loads of people on the lowest package paying a tiny amount in subscription. I doubt it would be enough to maintain the system at such a high capacity.

It follows logically that, for a system to be cost effective in terms of maintenance and support, it must be running at something near capacity to be pulling in enough revenue.

You wouldn't open a massive, state of the art toll road only for electric cars to keep the electric car drivers happy with no other traffic around them. No, you need the big, badass hummvees too and lots of traffic jams.

[*sloman*]

Originally Posted by chickendippers

If this replaces STM then I could be in favour. I remain optimistic however will reserve judgement until the full details are announced.

Same here i would be in favour of this but using torrents are not illegal!

Just downloading the music/movies/programs etc... you don't have the rights to is illegal.

They will never stop the hardcore pirates, private torrent sites/trackers, Usenet etc...

[DG--]

Originally Posted by *sloman*

Just downloading the music/movies/programs etc... you don't have the rights to is illegal

Is it?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Maybe. He is running a company with massive debt, so he's ofc going to want to try to make as much money as possible.

That is why we don't have to listen to him when he talks rollox. because we know he's just doing it because he hasn't got any money.

Maybe I just have a little more faith in him then some, but I can't see him commiting commercial suicide in search of higher profits,

How do you tell a mad man that he's off his head?