Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?

[craigj2k12]

As per the title....

I think its a reasonable idea to combat high utilisation at peak time. it is certainly the cheaper way (the alternative to upgrade the network). However as we have noticed recently the V stuff backup is being throttled, and lots of gamers are facing lag and generally bad gaming as the games use p2p hosting systems.

Another point is that people with fast connections, described as 'unlimited' should be able to download what they want, when they want.

Another point is that this could create a 2 teir internet, the reason why BT scrapped its plans to cache catch up TV services. (i dont agree with this, its a load of rubbish)

in my opinion, p2p software, in particular torrents were created as a way to speed up download speeds, and download from multiple sources at once. On faster connections, which is what you pay for from virgin media, you want to utilise this speed.

please vote and leave your opinion! :)

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:17 ----------

okay, so if they targeted torrents, then maybe, but have you tried playing call of duty between 5pm and midnight. its up and down like a yoyo

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:28 ----------

How about if they kept the current system in place, but allowed a minimum of, say, 5megabits, so you can be throttled to mimimum priority, but you will never get less than 5meg???

[Marcus125]

Virgins current P2P throttling software is believed to be crippling xboxlive access from the VM network. I don't care about p2p I do care about xboxlive!!

[craigj2k12]

Virgins current P2P throttling software is believed to be crippling xboxlive access from the VM network. I don't care about p2p I do care about xboxlive!!

it only cripples is because it gives it minimum priority on the network, so say, outside peak hours, your xbox live and someone elses http downloading would be prioritised the same, so would balance along side each other, whereas during the management period, the http download gets priority, and your xbox loses bandwidth, once it gets below, a certain amount, probably less than 500-700k, it will lag severely, as there is not enough bandwidth for the data to be transferred, if they did it like i said above, a minimum of 5m is reserved, but still low priority, then it should solve the lag

---------- Post added at 16:58 ---------- Previous post was at 16:40 ----------

anyone have any opinion on the matter?

[Ignitionnet]

it only cripples is because it gives it minimum priority on the network, so say, outside peak hours, your xbox live and someone elses http downloading would be prioritised the same, so would balance along side each other, whereas during the management period, the http download gets priority, and your xbox loses bandwidth, once it gets below, a certain amount, probably less than 500-700k, it will lag severely, as there is not enough bandwidth for the data to be transferred, if they did it like i said above, a minimum of 5m is reserved, but still low priority, then it should solve the lag

That's not how it works, XBL traffic should have the same priority as HTTP at all times, if it doesn't that is a fault.

VM obviously have problems with a lot of traffic being unidentified and falling into the same class as P2P / NNTP meanwhile NNTP over SSL from well known sources continues to enjoy unimpeded access.

Poor configuration and the shaping hardware not working as advertised.

[Hugh]

Yes - I don't think games traffic should be throttled (as some people are alleging is happening), but I don't have an issue with torrents being throttled; YMMV.

(I don't notice any problems on COD, but then I play multiplayer on PC).

[craigj2k12]

Yes - I don't think games traffic should be throttled (as some people are alleging is happening), but I don't have an issue with torrents being throttled; YMMV.

(I don't notice any problems on COD, but then I play multiplayer on PC).

i play on xbox and ps3, which chooses one of the players as host and everyone connects to the host by p2p. on pc its a bit different, they have dedicated servers, but im sure it should still be p2p?

[Hugh]

If it is, I have not been negatively affected playing COD (except by my age and ineptitude...)

[Jayster]

i play on xbox and ps3, which chooses one of the players as host and everyone connects to the host by p2p. on pc its a bit different, they have dedicated servers, but im sure it should still be p2p?

Yes they work similarly (Consoles and PC), however it would depend between games on consoles or pc if there are dedicated servers or player hosts (Eg. Battlefield has dedicated servers on consoles). Also I am not sure if all traffic has to go through the host or if it is a p2p network although my guess is that would vary from game to game.

As for the topic, If there was some way to have lower quality bandwidth cheaper (maybe routed a odd way?) which would end up having higher latency although not be totally congested and then higher quality bandwidth with lower latency,jitter and then having decent software to identify say a connection using more than a certain amount of bandwidth be routed along the cheaper way and connections using under a certain amount of bandwidth say voip/gaming/web browsing using the more expensive route.

I don't even know if that's possible or commercially viable. Just my 2 pence.

[Skie]

p2p on consoles is nothing like p2p filesharing.

But this is just a hamfisted attempt by VM to throttle file sharing traffic. White lists on the internet is just an awful idea, so much stuff will be missed in them and new things are popping up all the time that will be degraded until VM get enough complaints to actually do something about it. But its par for the course :/

[Sirius]

As per the title....

I think its a reasonable idea to combat high utilisation at peak time. it is certainly the cheaper way (the alternative to upgrade the network). However as we have noticed recently the V stuff backup is being throttled, and lots of gamers are facing lag and generally bad gaming as the games use p2p hosting systems.


I have been assured that Vstuff is not throttled so i reinstalled the software today. Its now 5.30 which is inside the managed period and i can confirm that my vstuff is uploading at 4.2 meg. So if it has been in the management in the past ? then its not now. I will continue to monitor my upload for the next day or two.

[Marcus125]

Yes - I don't think games traffic should be throttled (as some people are alleging is happening), but I don't have an issue with torrents being throttled; YMMV.

(I don't notice any problems on COD, but then I play multiplayer on PC).

Maybe you should look HERE (http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Gaming/bd-p/Gaming) then.

I think with the release of 50mb and 100mb the network is like a sinking boat that keeps springing holes. They just run round banging bungs in the holes instead of doing a full repair/upgrade.

[Sirius]

If it is, I have not been negatively affected playing COD (except by my age and ineptitude...)

Indeed

Cod 4 BFBC2 and Black ops all run fine for me as well and all via the pc. :tu:

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:45 ----------

Maybe you should look HERE (http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Gaming/bd-p/Gaming) then.
.

Looks like most of those problems are for Xbox or ps3

[Marcus125]

Well I guess VM know they have a good 18 months till Infinity really takes of and rolls out to good whack of the country.

But I think they will lose a lot customers once its available to a lot of people.

[Bonglet]

It's been throttled to death for some time now wont matter which isp at the end of the day, more of the internet protocols/services are getting fenced off/throttled every few months now.
End of net neutrality in uk will mean it goes bad for everyone unless you pay said isp for more bandwith then you will have isp wars where exclusive premium website/services access means pay more and get a better experience ;s.

[Hugh]

Maybe you should look HERE (http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Gaming/bd-p/Gaming) then.

I think with the release of 50mb and 100mb the network is like a sinking boat that keeps springing holes. They just run round banging bungs in the holes instead of doing a full repair/upgrade.Erm, all of those (except two posters) in the first two pages were on Xbox, not PCs...

btw, what you think and what is reality may differ - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.....;)

[Sirius]

Erm, all of those (except two posters) in the first two pages were on Xbox, not PCs...

btw, what you think and what is reality may differ - you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.....;)

Facts don't always fit in with a persons agenda all of the time ;)

[Kymmy]

Can I remind members that this is a family friendly forum which means as well as watching your language within a post we expect all links to abide by the same rules.

[craigj2k12]

I think that if virgin targetted torrents and newsgroups only, it would make the service a LOT better for gaming, in terms of ping, as the network load would be reduced

[Ignitionnet]

That is what they target, doesn't mean it's all that gets hit of course as they also shape unidentified traffic which is a common configuration.

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:50 ----------

End of net neutrality in uk will mean it goes bad for everyone unless you pay said isp for more bandwith

Perish the thought of paying more for a higher quality service.

At the moment operators are only shaping on the customer side, no reason to think this will change any time soon due to how cheap external bandwidth is in the UK, we've a well developed internet exchange with LINX and other alternate ones along with relatively low cost links to AmsIX, DecIX, ParIX, etc.

[craigj2k12]

That is what they target, doesn't mean it's all that gets hit of course as they also shape unidentified traffic which is a common configuration.

i understand they are working on sorting out xbox live at the moment, but why dont they just allow unidentified traffic as normal? they are blocking gaming, vpn, and even their own online backup until the update the other day

[Ignitionnet]

i understand they are working on sorting out xbox live at the moment, but why dont they just allow unidentified traffic as normal? they are blocking gaming, vpn, and even their own online backup until the update the other day

Because so much P2P hides. Leaving unidentified stuff alone makes it even more worthless than it is now as every arsewipe and their dog can tick a couple of boxes on the P2P client.

Blame P2P developers who insist on obfuscating their protocols to try and get around ISP shaping. You end up with what we have now, positively identified protocols being white listed rather than P2P being black listed.

[Marcus125]

Because so much P2P hides. Leaving unidentified stuff alone makes it even more worthless than it is now as every arsewipe and their dog can tick a couple of boxes on the P2P client.

Blame P2P developers who insist on obfuscating their protocols to try and get around ISP shaping. You end up with what we have now, positively identified protocols being white listed rather than P2P being black listed.

GOD DAM!! THEM People who pay for 100Mb and actually expect to have access to 100Mb for more than 4 hours a day!!!!!!!!!!

[Ignitionnet]

GOD DAM!! THEM People who pay for 100Mb and actually expect to have access to 100Mb for more than 4 hours a day!!!!!!!!!!

When you are actually paying for 100Mb instead of less than the price of a decent meal for 1 with wine per month for a best effort service that supplies up to 100Mb subject to FUP, AUP, etc, please do get back to me on complaints of the supplier shaping a few protocols for a few hours per day.

[Hugh]

When you are actually paying for 100Mb instead of less than the price of a decent meal for 1 with wine per month for a best effort service that supplies up to 100Mb subject to FUP, AUP, etc, please do get back to me on complaints of the supplier shaping a few protocols for a few hours per day.A lot less.....:D

[Marcus125]

When you are actually paying for 100Mb instead of less than the price of a decent meal for 1 with wine per month for a best effort service that supplies up to 100Mb subject to FUP, AUP, etc, please do get back to me on complaints of the supplier shaping a few protocols for a few hours per day.

What the hell you on about?

By the way our last meal was this weekend at a place called Da vincis in Ironbridge and the wine was £57 on its own, But the wine was worth it so was the service and meal.

VM doesnt give what the say. Da vincis does.

[Hugh]

I would have expected some glasses for that price....:D

[Marcus125]

I would have expected some glasses for that price....:D

You getting fed up of them plastic beaker eh?

[Hugh]

Those, dear boy, those ("them" is so non-u).

[|Kippa|]

I am glad that ftp and sftp has been left alone out of the application shaping. I find I can ftp to my server fine at full speed all the time at any time of the day. This is very good for people with websites and servers. Direct links to my ovh server have always been good. Application shaping might not be perfect but it isn't all bad.

[Marcus125]

When you are actually paying for 100Mb instead of less than the price of a decent meal for 1 with wine per month for a best effort service that supplies up to 100Mb subject to FUP, AUP, etc, please do get back to me on complaints of the supplier shaping a few protocols for a few hours per day.

ALSO-
Do you really think its fair the consumer pays because you under price your products? (you being VM which you obviously arent but you get my drift)

Or are you saying Virginmedia is a budget brand at a budget price? I DOUBT THEY WOULD AGREE.

[Chrysalis]

Voted no for following reasons.

1 - protocol shaping sucks in general, false positives. plus inspecting traffic resource intensive which itself can cause performance issues.
2 - no differential on light or heavy user, this system treats a heavy http user better than a light p2p user.
3 - useless if an area is congested and no or little p2p usage to throttle.

That doesnt mean I think there should be no congestion management just that I think there is better ways of doing it than protocol shaping.

---------- Post added at 21:55 ---------- Previous post was at 21:52 ----------

i understand they are working on sorting out xbox live at the moment, but why dont they just allow unidentified traffic as normal? they are blocking gaming, vpn, and even their own online backup until the update the other day

ofcom have told me they have told VM to do this. Apparently if VM dont comply they will be ordered to change their website.

[Marcus125]

Voted no for following reasons.

1 - protocol shaping sucks in general, false positives. plus inspecting traffic resource intensive which itself can cause performance issues.
2 - no differential on light or heavy user, this system treats a heavy http user better than a light p2p user.
3 - useless if an area is congested and no or little p2p usage to throttle.

That doesnt mean I think there should be no congestion management just that I think there is better ways of doing it than protocol shaping.

---------- Post added at 21:55 ---------- Previous post was at 21:52 ----------



ofcom have told me they have told VM to do this. Apparently if VM dont comply they will be ordered to change their website.

Well thats progression...OFCOM told me to contact VM and that they are aware of the issuse or something along them lines but massively over complicated for a reply email.

[Chrysalis]

Because so much P2P hides. Leaving unidentified stuff alone makes it even more worthless than it is now as every arsewipe and their dog can tick a couple of boxes on the P2P client.

Blame P2P developers who insist on obfuscating their protocols to try and get around ISP shaping. You end up with what we have now, positively identified protocols being white listed rather than P2P being black listed.

why dont VM just use a proper system like that one we discussed that comcast use. I warned everyone here protocol shaping will be problematic and is a poor way of managing traffic.

---------- Post added at 22:02 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

Well thats progression...OFCOM told me to contact VM and that they are aware of the issuse or something along them lines but massively over complicated for a reply email.

I got told that at first, but after about 2 weeks of daily phone calls they had logged all my calls and decided to take me a bit more serious, now I am at the stage they are consulting with VM about accuracy of their website in regards to traffic management. Bear in mind ofcom have just passed some new code of practice on this, its worth mentioning that as ofcom will look poor if they just let this drop, when I said that to them it kickstarted them into doing something.

Bear in mind VM are not been told to stop the shaping but rather to make the shaping match what is put on the website, so in affect either change the website to say what they whitelist and that rest is shaped, or to make shaping blacklist instead of whitelist.

[pip08456]

Voted no for following reasons.

1 - protocol shaping sucks in general, false positives. plus inspecting traffic resource intensive which itself can cause performance issues.
2 - no differential on light or heavy user, this system treats a heavy http user better than a light p2p user.
3 - useless if an area is congested and no or little p2p usage to throttle.

That doesnt mean I think there should be no congestion management just that I think there is better ways of doing it than protocol shaping.

Voted no for the same reasons.

BTW Chrys, You should've received an email from Neil at samknows today. Did you get it?

[Chrysalis]

Voted no for the same reasons.

BTW Chrys, You should've received an email from Neil at samknows today. Did you get it?

I did, he wants me to register fresh again, will do it tommorow.

[craigj2k12]

I did, he wants me to register fresh again, will do it tommorow.

what's this about? Sounds interesting

[Ignitionnet]

ALSO-
Do you really think its fair the consumer pays because you under price your products? (you being VM which you obviously arent but you get my drift)

Or are you saying Virginmedia is a budget brand at a budget price? I DOUBT THEY WOULD AGREE.

The consumer doesn't pay. They have made it quite clear since they launched the 100Mb product that it came with shaping of certain traffic. No-one put a gun to your head and forced you to purchase it and if it's not suitable for your needs you should have chosen another product.

Oh wait, there's about 3,000 private customers in total in the UK on 100Mbps products apart from VM. In other words you can't get those levels of performance from anyone else, even with the peak shaping in mind.

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

why dont VM just use a proper system like that one we discussed that comcast use. I warned everyone here protocol shaping will be problematic and is a poor way of managing traffic.

The current iteration is management version 1. It will progress no doubt but at the moment is based on a quite centralised system which is incapable of the granularity that the Comcast system has.

VM would need to do some quite heavy duty upgrades to facilitate a Comcast-like system. Their current systems just aren't capable of dynamic service flow changes or such timely traffic monitoring while the Comcast systems were thanks to their running IPDR to police their 250GB/month cap and their more advanced QoS management from their PacketCable system to supply VoIP over the cable network.

[Chrysalis]

The consumer doesn't pay. They have made it quite clear since they launched the 100Mb product that it came with shaping of certain traffic. No-one put a gun to your head and forced you to purchase it and if it's not suitable for your needs you should have chosen another product.

Oh wait, there's about 3,000 private customers in total in the UK on 100Mbps products apart from VM. In other words you can't get those levels of performance from anyone else, even with the peak shaping in mind.

so given the lack of competition why they price it so low, who put the gun to VM's head?

---------- Post added at 22:43 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

The current iteration is management version 1. It will progress no doubt but at the moment is based on a quite centralised system which is incapable of the granularity that the Comcast system has.

VM would need to do some quite heavy duty upgrades to facilitate a Comcast-like system. Their current systems just aren't capable of dynamic service flow changes or such timely traffic monitoring while the Comcast systems were thanks to their running IPDR to police their 250GB/month cap and their more advanced QoS management from their PacketCable system to supply VoIP over the cable network.

in short its been done on the cheap?

[craigj2k12]

If vm add any more things into the network they're just going to make it worse. The more things they put our traffic through the higher pings will be

[Ignitionnet]

so given the lack of competition why they price it so low, who put the gun to VM's head?

---------- Post added at 22:43 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------



in short its been done on the cheap?

In answer to part 1 the price of the rest of the market did - note BT's pricing of their Infinity service and its increment over their standard broadband price - zero.

In answer to the other point yes, absolutely, done on the quick and cheap. They are doing it quite cleverly and in the cheapest feasible way however you misunderstand why it was done. It was done to relieve pressure from transit and peering not local networks.

[pip08456]

what's this about? Sounds interesting

Here (http://www.samknows.com/broadband/signup/ofcom)

[|Kippa|]

I think that even with application shaping on the 50mbit and 100mbit connections, that Virgin Media are offering are excellent products for the price that they ask for. It wasn't that long in the past when 0.5mbit cost around £50 when it was first introduced. Comming from using 56k modems that was lucky to have a 3k download rate I think that users today are exteremly spoilt and want quite a lot for relativley nothing.

[Chrysalis]

In answer to part 1 the price of the rest of the market did - note BT's pricing of their Infinity service and its increment over their standard broadband price - zero.

In answer to the other point yes, absolutely, done on the quick and cheap. They are doing it quite cleverly and in the cheapest feasible way however you misunderstand why it was done. It was done to relieve pressure from transit and peering not local networks.

even more baffling, we both know now days transit and peering costs are very low historically. For an isp to employ management to control transit utilisation is rather unusual in 2011?

Also worrying in that VM obviously consider their port utilisation issues to not be a problem if the management wasnt even put in place to control that.

BT are selling a up to 40mbit product, VM's is superior on paper so there is no need to copy what BT are doing. They just need a better marketing team who can take advantage of BT's weaknesses. Consumers do have the cash, they spend horrific amounts on mobiles phones. gas, electric etc.

[theoldbill]

Perhaps Igni can tell us whether VM's current system is the same as Plusnet DSL's implementation? Using both services I know VOIP on Plusnet is absolutely faultless, the downside is p2p on their network is virtually dial-up at peak times.
I can't actually get Asterisk to get along with the Super Hub properly to test call quality on VM these days. From past experience there were lots of packet loss, jitter and other unpleasant stuff to make it unusable. If their new system is DPI I'd expect it to be perfect now when it comes across VOIP packets.

[Chrysalis]

plusnet shape but they also do priority class's for different types of traffic. gold silver bronze etc.

so they will throttle specific things down such as p2p and as you say very severely. Then on top of that if their pipes are hitting saturation point then stuff in their bronze class will be further throttled by deliberatly dropping packets to maintain the higher class's. Things like VOIP are in their platinum class I think. Web browsing is in gold class, and if you on their PAYG product everything is gold. So plusnet's is more advanced.

VM appear to have no system's in place that react to saturation and is a simple protocol shaping mechanism. My thoughts based on what I read here and elsewhere and what I know of plusnet's system (as they quite open about it). Plusnet even admit they shape unidentified traffic.

They even do things like throttle gaming traffic to 2mbit but put it in a high priority class. This I guess means if they accidently mark traffic as gaming or someone fakes it, they will still be throttled but gamers wont find their packets been dropped as they in a high priority class.

[theoldbill]

Yep I've been through the ups and downs of Plusnet's network history over the years, a lot of it unpleasant but seems to be ironed out now thankfully.

I know from only basic internet use on my PN connection, there is a lot of 'unidentified' traffic picked up even though I use no special apps on that connection, so if you replicate this on VM with a more heavy user I can see where the problems are cropping up with unidentified.

[Chrysalis]

Yep I've been through the ups and downs of Plusnet's network history over the years, a lot of it unpleasant but seems to be ironed out now thankfully.

I know from only basic internet use on my PN connection, there is a lot of 'unidentified' traffic picked up even though I use no special apps on that connection, so if you replicate this on VM with a more heavy user I can see where the problems are cropping up with unidentified.

plusnet at least appear to know what they doing, they have support procedures in place where people can report unidentified traffic and even tell the users how to sniff the traffic etc. Plus the fact they allow people to pay extra for a unshaped connection.

[theoldbill]

Something I would add, is VM's management CMTS-specific load based or network global (total volume of p2p across every CMTS) based?

The reason I ask, at 1930-2030hrs last night I was happily able to upload with uTorrent at the full ~9.5mbps without issue, surely at this time I should have been pulled down?

[Chrysalis]

what I read is it allows 25% of the available capacity to be used, so if you are the only p2p user on your port is quite possible it wont appear to be affected, also I am not convinced upload shaping is enabled network wide yet, as my areas had no affect at all on jitter etc. from when it got enabled yet other areas claim a large improvement. No announcement yet it has gone live, just trials.

[deed02392]

NOTHING should EVER be throttled in a discriminatory manner like this. This is a slippery slope to the loss of net neutrality. I implore you to look into what that would imply for the internet as a medium for humanity.

[Ignitionnet]

NOTHING should EVER be throttled in a discriminatory manner like this. This is a slippery slope to the loss of net neutrality. I implore you to look into what that would imply for the internet as a medium for humanity.

Net neutrality has always been a fallacy. Even without shaping hardware it's trivial to prioritise traffic from different sources.

The Internet isn't a 'medium for humanity' that belongs to all of us, it's owned and run mostly by private corporations and we lease access to it.

Sorry to be so dull, boring and realistic.

[Diesel2011]

The traffic shaping for Xbox Live is ridiculous. A few months ago, it was fine. Really noticing problems with it now.

Needs to be sorted asap.

[Chrysalis]

I brought a game from "on demand" on live about a week ago, 6 gig download, xbox360 was on at time so it automatically started downloading. I dont know when it finished but I dont think it took that long as I remember checking my download a queue an hour or 2 later and it was done.

[gobbledigook]

certainly!! especially at peak times :)

i would call myself a fairly heavy downloader... i don't like being told "when" to watch a show or enjoy advertising in any form. But does that mean i should be excluded from enjoying a show?

In my opinion... until VOD comes along in a form whereby it is easy to access across platforms (ie linux/windows + xbmc plex etc... and even internet TV's) and this absurd notion of airing it in the states first (superiority complexes or what!?) then i feel that i am totally legitimate in my need to download.

However.... I schedule my stuff for overnight, lets face it most things in the states are aired at like 4am, plenty of time before "throttling" time for someone to record and upload it to usenet.

[craigj2k12]

that, i would agree with, but they are also shaping 'unidentified' traffic which is crippling xbox live, and call of duty at the moment

[deed02392]

Net neutrality has always been a fallacy. Even without shaping hardware it's trivial to prioritise traffic from different sources.

The Internet isn't a 'medium for humanity' that belongs to all of us, it's owned and run mostly by private corporations and we lease access to it.

Sorry to be so dull, boring and realistic.

I was not making a point on the actual difficulty of traffic shaping.

No need to apologise, if that is really all you see in the Internet, I can't help but feel sorry for you. The Internet has done a lot more than permit private corporations to extend their claw grip over the throat of the general consumer as what, just another advertising medium?!

[Ignitionnet]

I was not making a point on the actual difficulty of traffic shaping.

No need to apologise, if that is really all you see in the Internet, I can't help but feel sorry for you. The Internet has done a lot more than permit private corporations to extend their claw grip over the throat of the general consumer as what, just another advertising medium?!

It has been my source of employment and many other things for quite some time. Oh to see things in such black and white terms, it being either for the people, of the people and by the people, inviolate and open or an evil advertising medium for corporations to extend their claw grip over the throat of the general consumer.

The reality is of course somewhere in between and my statement was absolutely correct but let's not discuss reality, it tends to suck.

[Maggy]

Ahhh! The old "I want the entire internet and I want it NOW"! argument arises in yet another thread.

[deed02392]

It has been my source of employment and many other things for quite some time. Oh to see things in such black and white terms, it being either for the people, of the people and by the people, inviolate and open or an evil advertising medium for corporations to extend their claw grip over the throat of the general consumer.

The reality is of course somewhere in between and my statement was absolutely correct but let's not discuss reality, it tends to suck.

I see no reason it should be anywhere in the middle. I don't know how you can allow yourself to believe and even still accept that either. Perhaps you are just being pessimistic and I hope if the opportunity ever arose you wouldn't give up the chance to fight for the peoples' control over its operation.

[Hugh]

"The people's control"???

Are "the people" going to own the Network Control Centres, and the transatlantic cables?

What next - shall we storm the Winter Palace, and sieze control of the means of production?;)

[deed02392]

You are being pedantic. We have control in the sense that no one is or can be silenced on the internet at present. I think you need to look at the situation in Egypt. Why do you think their government found the need to take away their internet connectivity? It's a powerful tool for the people and not something which should have ANY restrictions imposed on it.

[Hugh]

You are being pedantic. We have control in the sense that no one is or can be silenced on the internet at present. I think you need to look at the situation in Egypt. Why do you think their government found the need to take away their internet connectivity? It's a powerful tool for the people and not something which should have ANY restrictions imposed on it.
You say "pedantic", I say "factual"....;)

You state that no one "is or can be silenced on the internet at present" - does that apply to newspapers' web sites, or forums like this, as I think you may find that we can be "silenced" if we break the law, or libel (or allow our members to libel) someone.

You also state that that it is "not something which should have ANY restrictions imposed upon it" - how about bandwidth restrictions due to geographic/technology limitations, how about legal restrictions such a copyright/libel/criminal acts, and how about the basic economic restriction that it all has to be built and paid for, as the IntraWeeb Faeries can't actually hedge their Magic Faerie Gold™ in the Futures Markets to pay for the technology stack and fibre that is the backbone of the internet?

[Ignitionnet]

You are being pedantic. We have control in the sense that no one is or can be silenced on the internet at present. I think you need to look at the situation in Egypt. Why do you think their government found the need to take away their internet connectivity? It's a powerful tool for the people and not something which should have ANY restrictions imposed on it.

Oh you're talking about censorship. Not the same as protocol shaping to be honest.

Sections of the Internet are censored for legal reasons, shaping is network management, nothing more. No-one is mooting wholesale censorship however it should be noted that many people demanding their 'rights' do so on media belonging to others.

There is nothing stopping 'the people' from publishing content however sooner or later you have to use a company's network, perhaps their servers too.

Shaping is not censorship anymore than an engaged tone on a telephone line is violating your right to converse. Blocking the protocols outright is censorship, this isn't happening.

The Internet is a collection of privately owned networks, alongside some state ones, linked together again mostly via privately owned interconnects.

You see where I'm going with this. It's a network run mostly to make money, unless every country in the world nationalises all their assets it will remain as such.

Working in the field for a decade has perhaps jaded me a touch as to the more spiritual nature of the interwebs ;)

[craigj2k12]

well 32 people say no and only 26 say yes, so virgin should stop all p2p management with immediate effect



LOL

[Sirius]

well 32 people say no and only 26 say yes, so virgin should stop all p2p management with immediate effect



LOL

Oh well back to dial up speeds :LOL:

[Ignitionnet]

Or even, perish the thought, higher end connections that cost a quid or more per Mbps.

[craigj2k12]

Or even, perish the thought, higher end connections that cost a quid or more per Mbps.

it would only cost a quid a month if you only used the net at peak times :D

[deed02392]

Oh you're talking about censorship. Not the same as protocol shaping to be honest.

Sections of the Internet are censored for legal reasons, shaping is network management, nothing more. No-one is mooting wholesale censorship however it should be noted that many people demanding their 'rights' do so on media belonging to others.

There is nothing stopping 'the people' from publishing content however sooner or later you have to use a company's network, perhaps their servers too.

Shaping is not censorship anymore than an engaged tone on a telephone line is violating your right to converse. Blocking the protocols outright is censorship, this isn't happening.

The Internet is a collection of privately owned networks, alongside some state ones, linked together again mostly via privately owned interconnects.

You see where I'm going with this. It's a network run mostly to make money, unless every country in the world nationalises all their assets it will remain as such.

Working in the field for a decade has perhaps jaded me a touch as to the more spiritual nature of the interwebs ;)

I actually see them as the same thing over the long term. I see traffic shaping as a step towards traffic prioritisation, hence corporations buying traffic, ISP's selling exclusivity to the highest bidder, the segmentation of the web and eventually the end of the global, 'free' internet as we know it. ISP's can own all the hardware and fibre they want, but they have no right over the traffic that goes through it as the responsibility they so wish to distance themselves from (i.e. copyright infringement).

[Ignitionnet]

I actually see them as the same thing over the long term. I see traffic shaping as a step towards traffic prioritisation, hence corporations buying traffic, ISP's selling exclusivity to the highest bidder, the segmentation of the web and eventually the end of the global, 'free' internet as we know it. ISP's can own all the hardware and fibre they want, but they have no right over the traffic that goes through it as the responsibility they so wish to distance themselves from (i.e. copyright infringement).

Traffic has been shaped on public networks for over a decade and that hasn't happened yet. That's just considering hardware appliances, it's of course perfectly feasible to deprioritise by having certain destinations you don't like very much crammed together on cheap congested transit and give uncongested connectivity to others.

ISPs are perfectly allowed to inspect traffic in an automated fashion for network management purposes without losing common carrier protection or violating privacy - see RIPA for more details.

[deed02392]

You say "pedantic", I say "factual"....;)

You state that no one "is or can be silenced on the internet at present" - does that apply to newspapers' web sites, or forums like this, as I think you may find that we can be "silenced" if we break the law, or libel (or allow our members to libel) someone.

If you have a message to get out, you can do so now to the whole world, anonymously; which for some people is equivalent to safely. Individual websites can be 'silenced', obviously, but because of the nature of the web at present, that would not be of any effect in censoring what people might need to say.

Are you unable to address why you think Egypt felt the need to take it down completely?

You also state that that it is "not something which should have ANY restrictions imposed upon it" - how about bandwidth restrictions due to geographic/technology limitations, how about legal restrictions such a copyright/libel/criminal acts, and how about the basic economic restriction that it all has to be built and paid for the [...] technology stack and fibre that is the backbone of the internet?

If they have oversubscribed their hardware, they better be ready to compensate those who aren't receiving the advertised service. I'm happy to accept contention ratios and 95th percentiles, as long as I'm told about them up front.

---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 ----------

Traffic has been shaped on public networks for over a decade and that hasn't happened yet. That's just considering hardware appliances, it's of course perfectly feasible to deprioritise by having certain destinations you don't like very much crammed together on cheap congested transit and give uncongested connectivity to others.

ISPs are perfectly allowed to inspect traffic in an automated fashion for network management purposes without losing common carrier protection or violating privacy - see RIPA for more details.

I know it has happened for a long time already, but I think you'll agree it is a much hotter topic now, hence this thread. It's this "you don't like very much" aspect of the traffic management which is wrong. Why should any one person be allowed to make that decision? How can they claim to represent the wishes of all the owners of the traffic?

ISPs may be allowed under the pretense they wouldn't be able to afford to do it on a big brother scale. I'd like to clearly state just because RIPA allows it, it most definitely does not mean it's right or A Good Idea.

[Ignitionnet]

I know it has happened for a long time already, but I think you'll agree it is a much hotter topic now, hence this thread. It's this "you don't like very much" aspect of the traffic management which is wrong. Why should any one person be allowed to make that decision? How can they claim to represent the wishes of all the owners of the traffic?

Because they own the infrastructure that traffic is using to get from source to destination or vice-versa. If the owners of that content, or the requesters, don't like the policies of their current carrier they can always find an alternate one or create their own.

[Chrysalis]

have a look at this data from last 5 minutes downloading of an ftp server.

before the green line is on the port encrypted ftp transfer, after green line is same server but after changed to port 443. This wasnt affected 2 days ago, so VM appear to be getting more agressive in throttling non p2p/nntp stuff yet I see no change of statement on their site.

[Ignitionnet]

Try it again, might have been a one-off ID failure.

[Chrysalis]

still the same, it wasnt one large file so was multiple connections anyway during that graph.

Will test again after midnight to see if it changes behaviour.

[craigj2k12]

if you look at the virgin forums, they are updaing their throttling policies onto the network quite regularly, the one iv been following is the large 20+ page thread about black ops, in which they keep updaing the traffic management to the network with no difference to black ops, but peeps on here are saying that other things are changing!

[Chrysalis]

still slow now, so could be some other reason. Dont think its to do with the london routing issues as is going via manchester.

[DABhand]

I agree there should be some sort of throttling from heavy users, but to force it on everyone is pretty bad. The 75% throttling to me is pretty tough, they can easily cope with a less stringent amount if they did lower it to say 33%-50% I think most people wouldn't feel it was bad, except those who rely on grabbing their warez to sell like movies etc as an extra income they would moan about it cause they could lose out to competition in the area by others on another ISP :P

[matt-h]

Its getting silly now , was slow to use messaging , invites for about a month but then it cleared up for a whole 6 days and as of last night its back to being slow again.

VM CSR/Tech arent interested and seem like they couldnt give a monkeys. This attitude is bad even for them. Now obviously all the phone staff arent like that but to be told its just me or xbl thats at faul when it isnt is insulting.

Im beginning to consider leaving especially with the likes of infinity being available here i no longer need a bt compatible phone line fitting.

[pip08456]

Even for Infinity you need a BT phone line. - Get it now! - It's free! (the phone line that is.)

[matt-h]

Even for Infinity you need a BT phone line. - Get it now! - It's free! (the phone line that is.)

Meant in terms of my phone cabling internally. For adsl they wanted to replace it all. Yeah id need to be a bt phone subscriber to but at least XBL doesnt crawl on that,

[pip08456]

Understood but a bit unclear.:D

I have no problems with infinity, there is a little issue for gamers using Rift and WOW ATM but they are trying to sort it.

That said VM had problems with WOW as well but blizzard are issueing a patch which seems to me it is not an ISP problem although not being an on-line gamer I don't know.

[matt-h]

XBL works like a charm from what my friends that are on it say and as thats the biggest use of my connection thats what matters to me.

[pip08456]

Latency, ping and more importantly for gamers jitter will be lower.

[matt-h]

Indeed which is something VM are notoriously bad for , in fact the networks been ropey since NTL took over , least round here they have

[Chrysalis]

ok I been doing more testing and wanted to repeat the test over a number of days which I have now done.

It seems my slow ssl ftp transfers do indeed speed up but not after midnight instead after 2am. I taken snapshots every 5 minutes which in turn has created a messy document that I had to sort out (it formatted badly no new lines). Here is one day's data between 1.45am and 2.15am.

1.45 port 31231 241kB/sec port 443 3665kB/sec
1.50 port 31231 905kB/sec port 443 3602kB/sec
1.55 port 31231 290kB/sec port 443 3595kB/sec
2.00 port 31231 104kB/sec port 443 3441kB/sec
2.05 port 31231 3665kB/sec port 443 3565kB/sec
2.10 port 31231 3615kB/sec port 443 3699kB/sec
2.15 port 31231 3660kB/sec port 443 3487kB/sec

[starbug]

That's not how it works, XBL traffic should have the same priority as HTTP at all times, if it doesn't that is a fault.

VM obviously have problems with a lot of traffic being unidentified and falling into the same class as P2P / NNTP meanwhile NNTP over SSL from well known sources continues to enjoy unimpeded access.

Poor configuration and the shaping hardware not working as advertised.

My NNTP over SSL to giganews is now being throttled to the same speeds as if over port 119.

*******s :mad:

[Hugh]

Do not use words that invoke the swear filter - this is against site T&Cs.

[starbug]

Do not use words that invoke the swear filter - this is against site T&Cs.

lol

[Ignitionnet]

My NNTP over SSL to giganews is now being throttled to the same speeds as if over port 119.

*******s :mad:

Goodo. Working as intended now.

[Brian Hertz]

No, of course they shouldn't.
They shouldn't filter or ban anything.

In 'the ideal world' their infrastructure should be suitable to cope with the demands of their subscribers, anticipating that they all might actually use the bandwidth they're paying for (yeah, I know, "up to" etc.... shut up!).

There are already daily traffic quotas in place for the lower tiers.
How any paying customer uses his or her quota should be their own business, besides which, isn't bittorrent usage in decline anyway?

[pip08456]

No, of course they shouldn't.
They shouldn't filter or ban anything.

In 'the ideal world' their infrastructure should be suitable to cope with the demands of their subscribers, anticipating that they all might actually use the bandwidth they're paying for (yeah, I know, "up to" etc.... shut up!).

There are already daily traffic quotas in place for the lower tiers.
How any paying customer uses his or her quota should be their own business, besides which, isn't bittorrent usage in decline anyway?

Supposedly but unfortunately none of us live in "the Ideal World" that is just a pipe dream which will never happen! :D

We tend to live in the "Real World!":D

[AndyCalling]

Just my ideas about what's going on:

In the US at the moment ISPs are all trying to add hard caps to connections because however much bandwidth they provide for new applications, torrenting (and newsgroup downloading) mops it all up immediately in some areas. They need a solution and pumping up the system isn't working. It won't likely work either, until torrenters can download all they could possibly want for the day in about 30 mins. This is a long way off as normal internet usage is unlikely to drive such speed boosts soon and torrenting alone is not something ISPs want to key their upgrades around. Normal users won't see the benefit.

1) Hard caps. Users hate them, even so US ISPs are risking such. In the UK however, BBC iPlayer (and the coming YouView) would be knackered with hard caps and customers will not accept this. No-go for anything other than the most value of ADSL products aimed at the emailer/light browser type of customer.

2) Ban torrents on normal packages and have expensive torrent packages for such users. This is too extreme as many of us want to check out newsgroups and torrent on occasion. Just not 24h a day. The half way house is to have 100meg connections available which tend to attract torrenters and to use the extra income to provide enough capacity on the top tier connection to cope. This means the rest of us on lower tiers won't have to pay to cover torrenters needs. I think 100meg should be more expensive if VM aren't getting enough extra from it to do this.

3) Prioritize. ISPs in the UK have suggested the idea of content providers paying for priority net access but customers have not reacted well. The alternative is to drop the priority of torrent traffic as VM is doing.

VM's current strategy needs a few tweaks as far as I can see:

1) Price 100meg so that it can cover the cost of providing the capacity torrenters need.

2) On lower tiers, drop the priority of torrents (and newsgroup downloads) for a user if that user is affecting the net for nearby users. Do NOT limit everybody else in the area who have not behaved badly just because of the actions of a few chancers who won't pay the extra for the top tier and still want to torrent all day long. This is little different to the problems that congestion caused anyway, a few bad apples ruin it for everyone else. Just limit the offender. I do not see why my torrent speed should be slowed because others are being the digital equivalent of noisy neighbours.

3) Drop speeds when managing them ONLY for torrents and newsgroup downloads. Not for everything you don't recognise. This is not easy, I get it, but some ISPs around the world do manage this I hear on these forums, so find out how and do it. This is absolutely essential or you will constantly be peeving well behaved customers.

It seems simple to me. Am I being unreasonable?

[pip08456]

Yes.

I would surmise that those who torrent or download via newsgroups are the majority of those who go for the higher speed packages, the difference between the two is torrenters use upstream bandwidth as well.

Gamers don't need higher speeds, they need low ping and jitter.- Not good if torrenters are prevalent in their area due to them gobbling up the upstream bandwidth.

IMHO the ISP's have to swallow a lot of the blame for it. They gave the wrong impression to users by selling products as unlimited when there was in fact limits on it! It's all about how you look at it and marketing.

Torrenters and newsgroup downloaders should really be looking at the niche providers like Be, et al, and paying the premium for it. That will upset the newsgroup users who already pay for the quicker download from the newsgroup server.

It's a total can of worms and I cannot see how the ISP's can solve it to the satisfaction of everyone.

I could go on but I don't want to fill a whole page with a post.:D

[Ignitionnet]

1) Price 100meg so that it can cover the cost of providing the capacity torrenters need.

Sadly if most of these guys aren't interesting in paying for the content they are torrenting (and please people spare me all the stuff about legal and illegal content we all know that virtually all the data torrents and NNTP shift is copyright theft, I am not for a moment saying it all is and am quite aware that CF has the largest concentration of legal NNTP / P2P users in the world) there is little indication that they are inclined to pay more for their services.

The cost of 100Mb would be... unpleasant if unlimited and unmanaged.

[Hugh]

cf has the largest concentration of legal nntp / p2p users in the worldrofl

[ErnieBean]

as p2p people pay they have they same rights as the rest of us.
What the pass across is a different matter.
I use it to download the latest driver-packs.

[Hugh]

Yes, a lot of people seem to do that, approx 60GB of drivers per day.....

[Sirius]

quite aware that CF has the largest concentration of legal NNTP / P2P users in the world)


Well said :)

---------- Post added at 10:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------

Yes, a lot of people seem to do that, approx 60GB of drivers per day.....


I use it to download the latest driver-packs.

Are those drivers updated EVERY day as well :LOL:

[ErnieBean]

They are updated frequently but not daily

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

If you just download, say xp 32 bit they will only be around 4Gig

[Ignitionnet]

I must admit to not being sure on this one, I only tend to download drivers for hardware I actually own and only update them when I have a reason to.

C:\>dir *.mui /a /s | find "bytes"
9543 File(s) 235,703,368 bytes

C:\>dir *.drv /a /s | find "bytes"
12 File(s) 2,394,112 bytes

[Sirius]

I must admit to not being sure on this one, I only tend to download drivers for hardware I actually own.

C:\>dir *.mui /a /s | find "bytes"
9543 File(s) 235,703,368 bytes

C:\>dir *.drv /a /s | find "bytes"
12 File(s) 2,394,112 bytes

There the new linux iso's :LOL:

As for me i just download the internet :)

Stream the internet :)

And any thing else i can do on the internet :)


You could call me a serial bandwidth abuser :)

[Hugh]

Exactly - if you are going to to it, be loud and proud.

Not "I only download drivers and linux ISO's" (and have 4 x 1TB drives to store them on).

[_wtf_]

There seems to be a perception that if you're a high bandwidth user you can only be doing so if you're into illegal file sharing.

I would guess that the real people who are affecting the network know how to pretty much circumvent any traffic shaping. VPN's not only hide their IP address but should also scupper the ISP's traffic management systems, that is, if they really are not inspecting peoples VPN packets, which I personally think they are doing.

The internet is becoming, if it isn't already, a utility so why not have a meter outside the house? I pay something like £80 p/m for my electricity and when I want to use it I can. Yet I pay half of that for my internet and basically can use it to it's full extent when I should be sleeping and can hardly use it at all for what I really want it for, gaming

---------- Post added at 11:44 ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 ----------

There the new linux iso's :LOL:

As for me i just download the internet :)

Stream the internet :)

And any thing else i can do on the internet :)


You could call me a serial bandwidth abuser :)

LMAO.

Bet you don't play games though!!

3x50MB How on earth does that work?

---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 ----------


Not "I only download drivers and linux ISO's" (and have 4 x 1TB drives to store them on).

LOL, I have a dedicated server to store my Linux ISO's on. It also runs Transmission to share them with everyone else :angel:

[SOSAGES]

seems a shame i have a 50MB connection and have to wait until midnight to use it fully.
ho hum.

[Sirius]

Bet you don't play games though!!


Bet i do.

Proud clan member of www.nthwgaming.co.uk

i play BFBC2, MW2, COD4, COD5, COD Blackops :)



3x50MB How on earth does that work?

I work for VM and i have been asked to do some testing ;)

And before anyone asks i only use my paid for connection for gaming and leaching. I do not use the test connections for anything other than testing and the test connections are only active when testing is in progress. Considering how some on here act with members of staff i feel it best making sure they are aware of that fact.


LOL, I have a dedicated server to store my Linux ISO's on. It also runs Transmission to share them with everyone else :angel:

I did have one for a while located in Germany :)

[craigj2k12]

I work for VM and i have been asked to do some testing ;)

superhubs dont need testing according to most VM staff the work perfectly :D

[Sirius]

superhubs dont need testing according to most VM staff the work perfectly :D

The testing i am doing has nothing to do with the issues some have reported :D. Thats all i am saying on the matter.

[Jayster]

I would guess that the real people who are affecting the network know how to pretty much circumvent any traffic shaping. VPN's not only hide their IP address but should also scupper the ISP's traffic management systems, that is, if they really are not inspecting peoples VPN packets, which I personally think they are doing.


That is where I think you are wrong, A lot of people student age (Secondary school and University) torrent yet know little about it not to mention anything else.

[Chrysalis]

andy you not quite right.

hard caps would work fine alongside iplayer et all unless either the caps are very low or the user is someone who uses iplayer quite heavily eg. 10 hours a day every day. However in the latter case I dont see that as a reason to not go ahead with hard caps, it is by far the most sensible solution but it conflicts with marketing.

'any' form of protocol shaping is pretty much doomed to fail, its 2 main problems are (a) it has too little % of users to work on and as a result those who do get throttled can get throttled excessively, if an isp has to throttle people down to dialup speeds to manage their capacity then that is going too far, and (b) false positives, even plusnet who have been doing this for years have regular issues with unidentified traffic.

Also p2p/nntp users will not forever suck up upgraded capacity, if the capacity is upgraded in drip feeds, ie. an extra 10% here and there then it could well seem that way because at the point they decide to upgrade they may be massively under capacity in the first place,if proper upgrading is done eg. a 10 fold increase (would be incredibly over subscribed if one not enough) then things would be ok. Of course VM operate in a manner they can/cant wont do large upgrades, a large upgrade for VM is doubling of bandwidth ie. node split or docsis2 port upgrade. In any case if an upgrade is immediatly saturated all it shows is that the oversubscription level is severe. I guess not too surprising when considering VM wait till ports are saturated before even starting to plan an upgrade never mind start the work. Even when saturated they still may not do anything and the CEO office or tier2 support need pushing to get things moving. In that situation if eg. it takes 6 months to do the upgrade then there is 6 months of growth going on whilst this is happening and the upgrade will likely only get them back to where they were 6 months ago if enough growth and of course means VM are constantly then playing catchup with capacity. This method of capacity management is doomed to fail even without p2p users.

p2p may be majorily copyright content (ignition its copyright infringement not theft), however isp's are not the police they should not be picking and choosing what types of traffic to crippled, I can understand to an extenct crippling the heaviest users by usage of 'any' protocol but not picking on specific protocols only.

Like I said in another post I am curious why protocol shaping is so popular in this country, our government is certianly one of the most anti copyright in the world as we have the most agressive laws in regards to copyright, I cant get out of my head copyright is a factor in why isp's have come to employ protocol shaping. Entanet's old now unused capacity management is by far the best I have seen in this country for those who dont know it worked like this.

Entanet had numerous BT central pipes (their chokepoint's) for their customers to use, at specific times of the day like in the evenings at 10pm when unlimited usage started then there was high demand causing all the pipes to hit 100% utilisation. They had a system called ALT (anti loss tool), you can maybe guess from the name its primary purpose was to prevent packet loss so basically maintain QOS. The pipes had different status colours, green, amber, red and black. Green is when utilisation below a certian threshold which I think was something like 95% utilisation. (because those pipes 655mbit much bigger than a UBR port they could tolerate higher % of usage before service detriment), then amber up to maybe 98% red up to 100% and black over 100%, apparently was possible to to slightly go over 655mbit on the pipes due to them been physically gigabit links but artifically throttled by BT. When green nothing was throttled, amber would be no change, if red then max possible speed for every single customer would be dropped by 0.5mbit. Same on black. So they were polled at intervals as I cannot remember how often lets say every 5 minutes. If the status still red or black then go down a further 0.5mbit, its possible if black it was more agressive as I cannot remember fully, this would keep going reduction of speeds until either hit the min threshold set by entanet which was 2mbit, so noone be throttled below 2mbit, or the status turned to amber or green. when amber I cannot remember it either kept it where it is or increased by 0.5mbit, green it increased by 0.5mbit every poll until full speed again or change to red. So basically it was constantly monitoring and adjusting end user throttled speeds to manage spare capacity. Now in my view entanet were over subscribed, this system kicked in on average 2 to 3 hours a day every weekday evening and nearly always went down to the bottom 2mbit but not on every single pipe, some were often barely affected due to inbalance of user spread across the pipes. On the weekends is where I seen the issue in that the system kicked in both every saturday and sunday just about the entire day from the morning all the way until midnight or so. That to me was excessive and led me to leave entanet however the actual throttling system did its job very well, things like packet loss and jitter rarely happened, when I used ssh was fine, streaming was fine so they kept mainstream activities and latency sensitive stuff working. p2p ultimately was affected by the system but only down to 2mbit not something silly like 5kB/sec. They even had customers excempt, all entanet resellers who paid for their own usage were excempt from ALT. So like plusnet if willing to pay extra it could be bypassed, the option was there. Entanet still run ALT on BT's new 21CN system but its not so effective now I think, the guy who designed it left the company. ALT in general is way less complex than protocol shaping, the only things that need configuring are the thresholds and cap levels. It would use sigificantly less processing power, doesnt need to inspect packets, is no false positives as it doesnt discriminate, is dynamic based on utilisation of port used on so if not needed wont even kick in. Of course its not so attractive to isp's like VM as people would get slower speedtest results and as a result there would be more complaints. Even tho overall the service would be better quality, which then leads me to say a ALT type system that prioritises on heaviest users first is probably the ideal solution which is apparently what comcast use.

[Ignitionnet]

Entanet switched to protocol based shaping in late 2009. Evidently people who used their connections for a bit of iPlayer and You Tube here and there took exception to being throttled to 2Mbps due to the P2P and newsgroup kiddies caning the bandwidth.

ISPs can pick and choose the traffic they 'cripple' - the law says they can inspect packets for network management purposes. This activity is quite specifically permitted within RIPA.

The offence doesn't actually have a clear name, it's popularly called copyright theft unless one is actually engaging in it in which case it's called 'Making the most of my Internet connection.'

Copyright is perfectly transparently a factor in why ISPs protocol shape. P2P / NNTP are obvious and easy targets to shape, it's rare that the shaped content is actually legitimate and most of the time when it is it's someone trying to offload the cost of distributing their product onto ISPs.

If you're thinking that enforcement of copyright is why protocol shaping is employed that's not the case.

As far as protocol agnostic throttling goes there are cases for both. One case for the shaping is that it seems unfair for those who are engaging in streaming legitimate and paid for media to be throttled so that those who are using non-interactive applications can avoid being controlled. One case against it is that it's all network load so should be treated equally.

We've discussed capacity management in some depth previously. As noted with your ideas customers would be very happy until their ISP went under and you've a cynical approach from the company point of view due to previous experience which may or may not be typical. It's certainly getting quite old now if nothing else.

[carlwaring]

Considering how some on here act with members of staff i feel it best making sure they are aware of that fact.
You think facts will stop 'em? :D

[Ignitionnet]

It should of course be noted, in the name of balance, that some of the staff who post on the forum have also become increasingly provocative in their own right.

[Chrysalis]

I never said copyright is the only reason but I suspect its a factor. It wouldnt surprise me if someone whether it be the government or media companies have leaned on the major isp's and this has led to protocol throttling been favoured over other methods. If there was no protocol shaping then obviously something would be there in its place whether it be different types of throttling or usage limits. However to say protocol shaping is not expensive in mantime and not problematic is wrong so it is clearly not the best technical option to use yet it is popular here. Whilst some isp's in other countries may have deployed protocol shaping the extenct its been used is nowhere near the level its used here and some countries regulators have even gave it the thumbs down.

A few didnt like the 2mbit throttle on entanet is true but they were a small minority and didnt realise the alternative of allowing things to naturally congest would have been far worse, although iplayer was never a reason I heard and that doesnt require 2mbit so I cant think as to why that would be mentioned, when they switched was after they moved to WBC 21CN, that system didnt work so well with ALT plus at that time the guy who designed ALT had left the company. They initially tried to stick with just ALT and the protocol shaping came later. the most common complaint I heard related to ALT was more that people with high sync speeds felt they were been unfairly treated as the ALT capping system effectively left people with low sync speeds less affected, if you had a sync speed of 2mbit or below you were effectively never throttled. That really wouldnt apply to VM since everyone syncs at equal speeds although there is differing packages.

The point been that at 2mbit just about everything will still work. Now we have HD streaming which may possibly be affected but I would expect a modern day version of ALT to have a higher base limit than 2mbit anyway as that ALT was years ago.

[craigj2k12]

I never said copyright is the only reason but I suspect its a factor. It wouldnt surprise me if someone whether it be the government or media companies have leaned on the major isp's and this has led to protocol throttling been favoured over other methods. If there was no protocol shaping then obviously something would be there in its place whether it be different types of throttling or usage limits. However to say protocol shaping is not expensive in mantime and not problematic is wrong so it is clearly not the best technical option to use yet it is popular here. Whilst some isp's in other countries may have deployed protocol shaping the extenct its been used is nowhere near the level its used here and some countries regulators have even gave it the thumbs down.

ofcom are happy with 512kb broadband

[Chrysalis]

ofcom are happy with 512kb broadband

whats that to do with copyright?

any leaning wouldnt have been done via ofcom anyway, more likely the minister responsible for it.

technically if something is been throttled to below whatever the defined speed for boadband is, then its not a broadband product so if 'any' protocol is throttled to dialup speeds then the product itself is not technically broadband. Unfortenatly its yet another thing thats never made it to court to be tested.

[Ignitionnet]

Whilst some isp's in other countries may have deployed protocol shaping the extenct its been used is nowhere near the level its used here and some countries regulators have even gave it the thumbs down.

You are having a laugh right?

Incomplete list, obviously, but...

http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs

[_wtf_]

I wonder if/how long before some bright spark figures out a way of disguising/using the http protocol for all things p2p are currently being hammered for!

I also don't understand why bandwidth is apparently more expensive than rocking horse pooh.

[Hugh]

Try buying business bandwidth if you think consumer is expensive....

[Sirius]

It should of course be noted, in the name of balance, that some of the staff who post on the forum have also become increasingly provocative in their own right.

Hope your not aiming that at me Sir

[_wtf_]

Try buying business bandwidth if you think consumer is expensive....

So you don't know either then.

[Chrysalis]

You are having a laugh right?

Incomplete list, obviously, but...

http://wiki.vuze.com/w/Bad_ISPs

looks inaccurate to me.

for a start comcast is listed.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24296633-Is-comcast-still-packet-shaping-BTeD2kKadp2pemule

[Ignitionnet]

Hope your not aiming that at me Sir

Nope you were always provocative :p:

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

looks inaccurate to me.

for a start comcast is listed.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24296633-Is-comcast-still-packet-shaping-BTeD2kKadp2pemule

I'm aware it's inaccurate. It both has ISPs that don't application shape and is missing some that do. Doesn't change that the practise is widespread.

Preaching to the converted regarding BBR ;)

Joined: 2004-03-18 (8th year!)
Membership: Premium+VIP

[Chrysalis]

there is a fair few isps on it who do have throttling but is not protocol throttling, so it seems if any kind of throttling exists it gets listed.

how many northern european country isp's you see on there?

france
belgium
germany
sweden
holland
denmark

in europe its portugal and uk that stand out.

[Ignitionnet]

Ah I see we've gone from 'other countries' to 'Northern Europe'.

As it is it's quite inaccurate as previously noted. For example in France Numericable throttle by application, Belgium have no need, they're expensive and have either hard or soft caps after which they throttle everything down to slow speeds or charge overages.

I am unsure of Germany, Sweden obviously are for the most part municipal or use municipal resources, Netherlands are a tricky one as UPC most certainly did use application throttling, unsure what the situation is now, Denmark is relatively slow and expensive.

While there are unshaped options in the UK it's fine. You pays your money you takes your choice, compromising on protocol neutrality in return for a lower price per Mbps or taking a service which may or may not have bit caps and be more expensive.

[Chrysalis]

What choice? what cable package is there for me at a higher price that has no shaping?
What FTTP/C is there available to me likewise?

Interesting you slammed ALT when it achieved its aim, its aim wasnt to maintain speeds, it was to maintain jitter/loss. Whats the aim of the currently employed protocol shaping in terms of service quality?

In regards to my claims, the canada list has the isp's I say are wrong.

Brazil,china and india are all emerging economies, when this is all considered the UK is poor going. I compared it to countries of similiar economic status and locality.

Denmark isnt as slow as you think, my friend there (yes I have lot abroad in various countries) has a 100/100 service unthrottled. They were rolling out FTTP 5 years ago.

[Ignitionnet]

Copying your rhetoric Denmark has an FTTH penetration of about 8% - the vast majority of this FTTH municipal. What about the other 92%? I can find 8% of the UK with access to 20Mbps+ unshaped services.

Going back to choice you have the option of ADSL. You may not like the choice but it's there. You have instead chosen to take a higher speed but shaped cable service. This was your call. You cannot expect the products to change to suit your requirements, or for any product to match your requirements exactly unless it is a bespoke one.

This is not an uncommon choice, the overwhelming majority of the world that actually has a choice has the choice of DSL or cable, with perhaps some wifi thrown in.

In your fervour you again read something I didn't say. I didn't slam ALT Entanet's customers did which is why they changed to protocol shaping.

This sentence:

In regards to my claims, the canada list has the isp's I say are wrong.

Makes no sense - please rephrase this. Canada are notorious for their use of both shaping and capping, to the extent where all the operators reselling Bell Canada's services actually have their customers' protocol shaped by Bell and in addition are charged usage based rates.

The frustration here seems to be that you, personally, are at the end of a quite poor DSL line and the cable company which offers your fastest option shape. It doesn't change that while I may not like the dynamic of it the UK has one of the most competitive markets in the world, to the detriment of a few things, and over 80% of the population have access to an unshaped LLU service with nearly all the rest having access to bit capped but unshaped wholesale based DSL.

The place you live in is extremely deprived, doesn't have the greatest prospects and has many factors which aren't conducive to high levels of high tech investment. High tech investment won't magically revitalise the economy either else there would be a stronger municipal push. If you wish for 100/100 unshaped I could show you a few places here and there where you can avail yourself of it :)

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

Denmark isnt as slow as you think, my friend there (yes I have lot abroad in various countries) has a 100/100 service unthrottled. They were rolling out FTTP 5 years ago.

You're a geek, you work managing servers and spend a good part of your recreational time playing video games and conversing on forums, you will likely be associating with geeks who will inevitably research more and choose niche options where they best suit their needs. Hardly typical of the mainstream broadband markets.

I wasn't aware we were having an international popularity contest? ;)

[Chrysalis]

yeah it may be a niche service (or it may not be) havent checked, the fact is its there available for him to use tho.

We have some services here close in london, but they need a turbo mode activated if i remember right for a temporary boost of speed and still have async upload speeds.

I would be surprised even in FTTP deployments if we ever get consumer 100/100 type unthrottled services as I think the media industry will put a block to it.

[craigj2k12]

yeah it may be a niche service (or it may not be) havent checked, the fact is its there available for him to use tho.

We have some services here close in london, but they need a turbo mode activated if i remember right for a temporary boost of speed and still have async upload speeds.

I would be surprised even in FTTP deployments if we ever get consumer 100/100 type unthrottled services as I think the media industry will put a block to it.

once all illegal downloads are blocked, a 500/250 service would be quite possible, as the bandwidth could be shared between 500 people, as none of them would have anything to use it for

[Ignitionnet]

yeah it may be a niche service (or it may not be) havent checked, the fact is its there available for him to use tho.

We have some services here close in london, but they need a turbo mode activated if i remember right for a temporary boost of speed and still have async upload speeds.

I would be surprised even in FTTP deployments if we ever get consumer 100/100 type unthrottled services as I think the media industry will put a block to it.

Hrm nope the services have asynchronous speeds as standard with synchoronous as an option.

There are FTTP deployments with 100/100 services available right now.

I am sure the media industry would love to be able to dictate to ISPs the upstream speeds they offer, sadly the reasons for the asymmetry in most cases are nothing more exotic than technical restrictions around passive optical networks.

[ErnieBean]

I know most people use p2p for dishonest activities.
How many people use up bandwidth watching streaming films from websites.

[Sirius]

How many people use up bandwidth watching streaming films from websites.

Me for starters

[craigj2k12]

I know most people use p2p for dishonest activities.
How many people use up bandwidth watching streaming films from websites.

most games use p2p

[ErnieBean]

Judging by the members of Sony, Gamers probably use an high percentage of the bandwidth.

[Ignitionnet]

Judging by the members of Sony, Gamers probably use an high percentage of the bandwidth.

Gaming is pretty light on bandwidth. P2P downloads, newsgroups, streaming video are the big 3.

[roughbeast]

I answered 'No' to the question mainly because of the effects of VM's poor throttling software on gaming. I would have no objection to torrents being throttled between certain hours.

Out of concern for other users I schedule my torrents to run outside of the peak evening slot. ie off at 4.00 pm, on at 12.00 midnight. Weekends I treat differently. If other torrent users could do the same then everyone except copyright holders would be happy.

[deuse]

I answered NO because it's illegal for the retail trade to sell you a pint of beer only to find
out you only got 3/4 when you get home. And so it should be the same for all IPs.

[craigj2k12]

what equipment do virgin media use to throttle p2p software?

i know someone posted a link in the past, but i cant find it

[Chrysalis]

I answered 'No' to the question mainly because of the effects of VM's poor throttling software on gaming. I would have no objection to torrents being throttled between certain hours.

Out of concern for other users I schedule my torrents to run outside of the peak evening slot. ie off at 4.00 pm, on at 12.00 midnight. Weekends I treat differently. If other torrent users could do the same then everyone except copyright holders would be happy.

I think most would be more forgiving if it was a blacklist rather than whitelist policy so unidentified traffic unthrottled or at least treated in high enough regard so it doesnt break mainstream apps. Yes the ISP wouldnt be saving so much in bandwidth costs but they would still be saving something.

According to sandevine whilst p2p remains a majority of upload traffic it is now a minority of download traffic.

[Hugh]

I think most would be more forgiving if it was a blacklist rather than whitelist policy so unidentified traffic unthrottled or at least treated in high enough regard so it doesnt break mainstream apps. Yes the ISP wouldnt be saving so much in bandwidth costs but they would still be saving something.

According to sandevine whilst p2p remains a majrity of upload traffic it is now a minority of download traffic.That may be true worldwide, but Cisco's estimate (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/cmr-10/UKCM-5.7.html) in 2009 (can't find anything more recent) states that in the UK File sharing (i.e. peer-to-peer sharing where internet users connect with each other and directly share files stored on their hard drives) accounted for around 30% of traffic

[craigj2k12]

does anyone know the equipment used?

from what i can remember it was a foreign country who supplied the hardware used at the CMTS to throttle P2P protocols

[Chrysalis]

http://www.plus.net/addons/pro/

note unidentified is listed and if pay extra it can be prioritised. VM take note.

[craigj2k12]

http://www.plus.net/addons/pro/

note unidentified is listed and if pay extra it can be prioritised. VM take note.

That should be exactly how VM do it, but if they do that, they will screw it up, i.e. by saying gaming is prioritised, then ending up blocking it lol :D

[Ignitionnet]

does anyone know the equipment used?

from what i can remember it was a foreign country who supplied the hardware used at the CMTS to throttle P2P protocols

Interesting use of language there, I'm interested in seeing where this is going.

Anyway it's these (http://www.allot.com/Service_Gateway_Sigma.html).

[ErnieBean]

If you pay for unlimited download, then you should not be throttled

[Maggy]

If you pay for unlimited download, then you should not be throttled

Even if your use of the service degrades other users service on your network? :erm:

[Ignitionnet]

If you pay for unlimited download, then you should not be throttled

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Unlimited services can have P2P throttled on them.

[carlwaring]

If you pay for unlimited download, then you should not be throttled
In the context of broadband usage, "unlimited" always refers to the amount of data you can download, not the speed.

[craigj2k12]

Interesting use of language there, I'm interested in seeing where this is going.

Anyway it's these (http://www.allot.com/Service_Gateway_Sigma.html).

i didnt really know what i was asking for, so it was pretty hard to describe!!! :D:D

[pip08456]

In the context of broadband usage, "unlimited" always refers to the amount of data you can download, not the speed.

I woulld be more inclined to agree with you but for VM sending out letters asking users not to download so much during peak hours, especially with traffic shaping in effect which in itself is a limit on amount, not just speed.

[carlwaring]

Whether you agree with me or no is irrelevant as what I posted was not opinion but simply actual fact :)

[pip08456]

Whether you agree with me or no is irrelevant as what I posted was not opinion but simply actual fact :)

In that case would you like to explain how a reduction in speed will not reduce the amount you can download?

[carlwaring]

It may reduce the overall total amount you can download but that does negate the "unlimited" tag.

VM's services are unlimited in that the amount you can download does not stop dead nor cost you any more when you reach a certain amount.

Surely it's not that difficult to understand :confused:

[Ignitionnet]

I believe this is a debate Mr Waring has had on newsgroups, Digital Spy, etc, with the usual pointless and circular arguments from both sides of the spectrum.

Let's not have that in this thread, it's discussing P2P shaping not STM, DUP, how unlimited or otherwise things are. That is a subject that has been done to death then resurrected and done to death again.

VM's services are unlimited according to the Ofcom / ASA definitions. They are not unlimited from the point of view of offering 'up to' a data rate and allowing unlimited usage at that data rate due to STM / DUP.

They're close enough to unlimited that the regulator is happy, the only genuinely unlimited provider in the market is Sky's LLU product, with Be Unlimited to all intents and purposes unlimited but with provisions within FUP to sanction heavy users.

There, debate over, back to P2P.

[Sirius]

It may reduce the overall total amount you can download but that does negate the "unlimited" tag.

VM's services are unlimited in that the amount you can download does not stop dead nor cost you any more when you reach a certain amount.

Surely it's not that difficult to understand :confused:

Please don't start this old boring argument up again.

I believe this is a debate Mr Waring has had on newsgroups, Digital Spy, etc, with the usual pointless and circular arguments from both sides of the spectrum.

Let's not have that in this thread, it's discussing P2P shaping not STM, DUP, how unlimited or otherwise things are. That is a subject that has been done to death then resurrected and done to death again.

VM's services are unlimited according to the Ofcom / ASA definitions. They are not unlimited from the point of view of offering 'up to' a data rate and allowing unlimited usage at that data rate due to STM / DUP.

They're close enough to unlimited that the regulator is happy, the only genuinely unlimited provider in the market is Sky's LLU product, with Be Unlimited to all intents and purposes unlimited but with provisions within FUP to sanction heavy users.

There, debate over, back to P2P.

:clap:

[craigj2k12]

:xmas:

[Sirius]

:xmas:

Keep on the medication and you will be OK in the end :)

[craigj2k12]

Keep on the medication and you will be OK in the end :)

sorry... this thread was going on for so long i thought christmas was surely near

[Sirius]

sorry... this thread was going on for so long i thought christmas was surely near

:LOL:

[carlwaring]

VM's services are unlimited according to the Ofcom / ASA definitions.
Plus the broadband industry in general of course.

They are not unlimited...
Except you just said that they are :confused:

..from the point of view of offering 'up to' a data rate and allowing unlimited usage at that data rate due to STM / DUP.
None of which affect the "unlimited" aspect unless one of those actually cuts you off after you have downloaded a given amount. Which, in VM's case, none of them do.

There, debate over, back to P2P.
Except that no debate has ever been needed on the subject as the word is so clearly defined; as described above.

[Hugh]

Can we stick to the topic, please?

[carlwaring]

Sorry boss. :o:

[Ignitionnet]

None of which affect the "unlimited" aspect unless one of those actually cuts you off after you have downloaded a given amount. Which, in VM's case, none of them do.

The DUP's 3rd strike means disconnection. See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33676746-disconnection-letter.html as a recent example.

This is enforcement of the following sections of the AUP:

3.2.1. Virgin Media does not place a limit on monthly network usage. However, in isolated cases (currently less than 0.1% of customers) where excessive network usage at busy times (9am to 9pm) is having a detrimental effect on other users, we may need to take appropriate action in accordance with the terms of this AUP to notify users of the impact they are having and require them to move some of their activity into the less busy period.
3.3. During an investigation, if we believe that a violation of this AUP or our Terms and Conditions has occurred, we may take immediate remedial action. Such action may include temporary or permanent removal of material from our servers, the cancellation of newsgroup postings, warnings to the User responsible, and the suspension, restriction or termination of the User's account.

If you wish to disagree with my posts section by section please in future quote the entire relevant section in full rather than quoting a sub-section purely to take it out of context to disagree with it - quoting

They are not unlimited...

To pick on those 4 words specifically then adding:

from the point of view of offering 'up to' a data rate and allowing unlimited usage at that data rate due to STM / DUP.

Is disingenuous and argumentative.

I was perfectly accurate, per above the DUP results in disconnection and STM makes it impossible to achieve the advertised 'up to' data rate while it is in effect.

If you wish to be argumentative for the sake of it there are plenty of other forums that will cater for just that desire.

Can we stick to the topic, please?

Apologies - it's just getting a little tiresome.

[roughbeast]

On topic. I hope VM decision-makers tap into threads like this. The messages are clear: VM, by all means penalise heavy files-sharing uploaders and downloaders during peak times, but do not penalsise gamers, streamers and tunnelers. If you don't grasp this nettle you will lose custom.

For P2P file-sharers the message is: Please curb your bandwidth hunger until everybody else has gone to bed!! If you don't, we will all suffer.

Off topic. I reckon you can can spot an anally retentive pompous ass just by looking at their avatar.

[Ignitionnet]

On topic. I hope VM decision-makers tap into threads like this. The messages are clear: VM, by all means penalise heavy files-sharing uploaders and downloaders during peak times, but do not penalsise gamers, streamers and tunnelers. If you don't grasp this nettle you will lose custom.

For P2P file-sharers the message is: Please curb your bandwidth hunger until everybody else has gone to bed!! If you don't, we will all suffer.

Off topic. I reckon you can can spot an anally retentive pompous ass just by looking at their avatar.

I agree with the first and second paragraphs. Much of the objections centre around the shaping misfiring rather than its existence. With the increased use of streaming and gaming more people than ever need responsiveness from their internets.

Regarding the third one don't upset Evil Pacman, he'll pop his power pellets and pwn you. :ninja:

[Chrysalis]

well the shaping is here to stay it is very unlikely to be removed now unless VM decide something else will do the same job better. Which is why I am concentrating now on them sorting out the unidentified issue.

[carlwaring]

On topic. I hope VM decision-makers tap into threads like this. The messages are clear: VM, by all means penalise heavy files-sharing uploaders and downloaders during peak times, but do not penalsise gamers, streamers and tunnelers. If you don't grasp this nettle you will lose custom.

For P2P file-sharers the message is: Please curb your bandwidth hunger until everybody else has gone to bed!! If you don't, we will all suffer.
Couldn't agree more :)

[pip08456]

I knew I'd get him to bite!

Sorry guys!

---------- Post added at 20:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------

Couldn't agree more :)

The point is I actually agree with shaping/throttling for P2P and newsgroups!

You as usual miss the point totally.

[carlwaring]

The DUP's 3rd strike means disconnection. See http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33676746-disconnection-letter.html as a recent example.

This is enforcement of the following sections of the AUP:
Well duh! If you break the rules, all bets are off.

I was perfectly accurate...
Except not really.

...per above the DUP results in disconnection...
Something which is is completely out of VM's contol and therefore irrelevant to the definition.

If you wish to be argumentative for the sake of it there are plenty of other forums that will cater for just that desire.
I'm not the one arguing that "unlimited" doesn't mean "unlimited".

Apologies - it's just getting a little tiresome.
Indeed. Subject closed. By all means have the last word if you like.




---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------

I knew I'd get him to bite!
You are indeed a master-baiter; or something like that.

[Sirius]

Well duh! If you break the rules, all bets are off.


Except not really.


Something which is is completely out of VM's contol and therefore irrelevant to the definition.


I'm not the one arguing that "unlimited" doesn't mean "unlimited".


Indeed. Subject closed. By all means have the last word if you like.




If you want to debate the meaning of life, The universe and unlimited will you start another thread please, This one does not need derailing just so you can try to prove a point that has been debated to death on here and is getting BORING

[Ignitionnet]

Well duh! If you break the rules, all bets are off.

Here we go.

That would be this rule:

3.2.1. Virgin Media does not place a limit on monthly network usage. However, in isolated cases (currently less than 0.1% of customers) where excessive network usage at busy times (9am to 9pm) is having a detrimental effect on other users, we may need to take appropriate action in accordance with the terms of this AUP to notify users of the impact they are having and require them to move some of their activity into the less busy period.

So there is actually a peak time limit on the service, it affects 'less than 0.1% of customers' but it's there.

Something which is is completely out of VM's contol and therefore irrelevant to the definition.

Indeed. Subject closed. By all means have the last word if you like.

VM disconnecting people for downloading too much is outside of their control?

This just goes from bizarre to ridiculous. VM are unlimited, except if you break the rules by, err, downloading too much during peak periods, in which case VM can disconnect you without it actually being under their control, and it doesn't affect defining the service as unlimited in any way. Wow to be able to shift the goalposts so much with a straight face must be great.

My first post on this subject was balanced, took account of both points of view, but what a surprise balance isn't satisfactory to you. Once again you follow your usual sycophantic, abrasive and argumentative theme. Had I simply bashed VM fair enough - I didn't. I quite appropriately noted that their service was not unlimited in the sense of having no download restrictions but that it satisfied the requirements of the ASA and Ofcom.

In the name of peace I'll stick you on my ignore list, you saying virtually nothing of value or sense but going out of your way to disagree with people. I've better things to do with my time on here frankly.

[Chrysalis]

I didnt reply ignition as in my view your post was laid out fair. You gave a double reply so in affect took a neutral stance.

[Daftlad]

Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic? That would be one thing. Problem I'm having now is that after 10 minutes or so of loading up uTorrent my connection is cut completely and a reboot of the router is required.

Glancing through the thread it seems that there are two sides that are either it is fair to throttle because other users of the service are disadvantaged by heavy users hogging bandwidth or it's not fair because VM offer one thing (unlimited downloads) but then go ahead and limit bandwidth in contradiction of that offer.

Me? I'd just be happy (well not so miffed) if they throttled my service instead of cutting me off completely - I only load up once every few months and if they'd leave it I'd be all done in 10 hours.

I think it would be fair to throttle users that are day in/day out maxing out their bandwidth but that it's unfair to throttle the guy that needs a blast of bandwidth every now and again.

Roughbeast (#163) - enjoyed your off topic comment, I was thinking the same thing.:monkey:

[carlwaring]

Problem I'm having now is that after 10 minutes or so of loading up uTorrent my connection is cut completely and a reboot of the router is required.
Unless you, apparently, have had a "three strikes" letter then VM will not have cut you off.

Glancing through the thread it seems that there are two sides that are either it is fair to throttle because other users of the service are disadvantaged by heavy users hogging bandwidth or it's not fair because VM offer one thing (unlimited downloads) but then go ahead and limit bandwidth in contradiction of that offer.

As you can still download whilst under the affects of STM then the service is still correctly described as "unlimited" for reasons given earlier :)

Me? I'd just be happy (well not so miffed) if they throttled my service instead of cutting me off completely - I only load up once every few months and if they'd leave it I'd be all done in 10 hours.
As far as I know VM does not cut their cable customers off without warning; ie the letter mentioned earlier. This is certainly the first I have heard of it. I assume you're on cable and not their ADSL service as that, I believe, has different rules.

My own connection sometimes stops for no apparent reason, requiring a re-boot. Perhaps this is what happened to you?

I think it would be fair to throttle users that are day in/day out maxing out their bandwidth but that it's unfair to throttle the guy that needs a blast of bandwidth every now and again.
I completely agree.

I also don't like any kind of STM or whatever. The difference being that I understand why it's there and won't go away just because I want it to :)

[Chrysalis]

since this conversation has carried on my view is what VM are supplying is an unmetered service not unlimited. The 2 are different things, the former means wont be billed for usage, the latter means a service without limits. The service does have a limits as STM is usage based and clearly VM are limiting specific usage patterns with the protocol shaping. I acknowledge within the regulators guidelines its unlimited but my own guidelines it is not.

[Ignitionnet]

Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic? That would be one thing. Problem I'm having now is that after 10 minutes or so of loading up uTorrent my connection is cut completely and a reboot of the router is required.

Sounds like it can't handle the amount of connections you're opening, see if you can lower the global connections and connections per torrent a bit. Each connection uses memory on the router and if it's a bit challenged in this regard it can, and will, reboot or lock up.

[DABhand]

I used to do about 75-100 per torrent on 50mb. Bear in mind some torrents don't instantly max out the speed you can get from the connected peers. Sometimes you have to be a bit patient.

Obviously setting up a TCP and if the torrent client allows it use a UDP port also, and turn off UPnP in the client settings also.. I have heard some routers can be funny with torrent UPnP.

[|Kippa|]

Ignitionnet what would you say is a reasonable price per month for a none p2p thottled connection? (being 50mbit down and 1.5mbit up or 5mbit up if you are a lucky git).

[pip08456]

Starting price would have to be about £150pm. It would depend on the cntention ratio. IMHO

[craigj2k12]

Starting price would have to be about £150pm. It would depend on the cntention ratio. IMHO

iv seen people paying more than double that for an 'up to 2mb' 5:1 ratio line. that was about 3 years ago, but still

[Ignitionnet]

Ignitionnet what would you say is a reasonable price per month for a none p2p thottled connection? (being 50mbit down and 1.5mbit up or 5mbit up if you are a lucky git).

Say 50 quid, a quid a meg?

[craigj2k12]

Say 50 quid, a quid a meg?

:bsmack:

50 quid a meg more like

[Ignitionnet]

Oh you didn't say anything about wanting full speed all the time, absolutely guaranteed. You just asked for a reasonable price for an unmanaged service.

No way 50 quid a meg is needed, a couple of quid a meg, maybe 2.50 should be enough to ensure no visible contention.

[pip08456]

Not far off the £150 I suggested then.

[Chrysalis]

heh so.

current prices = cheap product, heavy use protocols throttled, severe congestion possible.
£1 mbit so £50 for 50mbit = as above but throttling removed.
£2 mbit so £100 for mbit = no visible contention ie. no congestion and no throttling.

Would I pay £60 for 30mbit without protocol shaping and no visible contention? with the 3mbit upstream probably yes. Otherwise not sure, but I would defenitly think about it. Would defenitly pay £30 for a unthrottled 30mbit tho but subject to congestion.

[craigj2k12]

heh so.

current prices = cheap product, heavy use protocols throttled, severe congestion possible.
£1 mbit so £50 for 50mbit = as above but throttling removed.
£2 mbit so £100 for mbit = no visible contention ie. no congestion and no throttling.

Would I pay £60 for 30mbit without protocol shaping and no visible contention? with the 3mbit upstream probably yes. Otherwise not sure, but I would defenitly think about it. Would defenitly pay £30 for a unthrottled 30mbit tho but subject to congestion.

:english:

[roughbeast]

heh so.

current prices = cheap product, heavy use protocols throttled, severe congestion possible.
£1 mbit so £50 for 50mbit = as above but throttling removed.
£2 mbit so £100 for mbit = no visible contention ie. no congestion and no throttling.

Would I pay £60 for 30mbit without protocol shaping and no visible contention? with the 3mbit upstream probably yes. Otherwise not sure, but I would defenitly think about it. Would defenitly pay £30 for a unthrottled 30mbit tho but subject to congestion.

I still contend that the main problem is P2P file-sharers hogging bandwidth at peak times when most people want to use its full potential for gaming, tunnelling and streaming. We should not be discussing, (with weird English or otherwise), how much we would pay for a clean connection. If that is what you really want you can pay VM to connect you fibre to the home and be done with it.

What we should be doing is persuading as many VM subscribers as possible not to use torrents, imesh etc and massive usenet file downloads at peak times. Without their anti-social behaviour we wouldn't be having this discussion about pricing / throttling / unlimited downloads etc. OK I concede that it is a bit like asking the sun not to rise in the morning, but we are complaining about the wrong party. Can you really expect VM, with their superior internet delivery record, to commit commercial suicide by admitting problems that no other ISP will admit, and then offer, through the mass media, a genuine unlimited perfect connection for a price unacceptable to Jo Public?

In other words we should put up or shut up. Do something to change the behaviour of the peak-time bandwidth hoggers and / or pay for connections only normally afforded currently by corporate bodies. eg Those included in the 1.5Gb trial.

Just saying.:grind:

[pip08456]

Can you really expect VM, with their superior internet delivery record, to commit commercial suicide by admitting problems that no other ISP will admit, and then offer, through the mass media, a genuine unlimited perfect connection for a price unacceptable to Jo Public?



And what problems would those be?

[carlwaring]

And what problems would those be?
The band-width hogs he mentioned; possibly.

Also, well said, roughbeast.

[pip08456]

And which other ISP's do not admit to throttling P2P applications because of the amount of bandwidth it consumes?

From BT's website

"P2P refers to certain applications that enable files and program sharing between groups of people logged on to a P2P network. Because they use uploads and downloads and are often left running 24/7, they consume significant bandwidth, even when being used by just a small number of customers."

[carlwaring]

I was speculating. I'm sure roughbeats can and will (or may not) answer for himself in due course :)

[pip08456]

I do realise that, I was merely pointing out the error in your speculation. As you say roughbeast may answer for himself in due course.

[roughbeast]

I was referring to the suicidal headline admission that an ISP's network cannot always handle the types and volume of traffic that use it. ISPs tend to hide behind glossy emotive advertising* and the phrases 'up to' and 'unlimited'. You only find out the truth later, often too late for Jo Public, if you look more closely.

Unilaterally promoting, for general rather than corporate use, a very expensive connection with no traffic issues, would be suicidal. Why? Well this would be a glaringly obvious admission that your main product doesn't live up to expectations and would be picked apart by the media.

The only way that this wouldn't be suicidal would be for all ISPs to make a headline admission simultaneously. This isn't going to happen unless the regulator forces them to do so.

VM would be particularly foolhardy to go down this route because their internet product has been deemed the closest match to the existing headline promotion. ie Most people get close to the headline speed most of the time. Therefore, our discussion about how much we would pay for a clean, issue-free, connection is arid and pointless. It ain't going to happen unless you want to take advantage of, already available, expensive business products. These are promoted outside the mainstream media, so do not generate public comparison with VM's domestic products.

*BT's TV campaign is inspirational and clever, but is essentially a lie.

[carlwaring]

[VM's] internet product has been deemed the closest match to the existing headline promotion. ie Most people get close to the headline speed most of the time.
Can open; worms everywhere!

Of course you are 100% correct but I'm sure there'll be at least one person on here who will happily tell you how wrong you, the regulator and the rest of the industry are :)

ETA:
Sorry. I also means to add that I agree with the rest of your post as well and this is the problem. Some people will moan about the implimentation of STM, or other similar shaping technologies but then when it is explained to them why they are used and that, if they really want a 1:1 always-full-speed connection to the internet then they're going to have to pay far more for it, they tend to shut up in a hurry.

[roughbeast]

Can open; worms everywhere!

Of course you are 100% correct but I'm sure there'll be at least one person on here who will happily tell you how wrong you, the regulator and the rest of the industry are :)

I think those worms have been well and truly been aired and done over many times. We all know that individual experiences vary from the norm, but I was referring to statistical not anecdotal evidence.

[carlwaring]

Indeed. :)

[_wtf_]

Isn't it amazing how we all have electricity and gas in our homes judging by how much people seem to think bandwidth costs we should not be able to afford them at all! I mean after all electricity has to be made then distributed gas has to be collected then distributed yet bandwidth just needs the distribution system which also does not need the safety measures gas or electricity require. Yep, I fail to see how we can afford such items.

BTW, rent a server for anything from £25 and you get that very expensive bandwidth for free!

[Chrysalis]

*BT's TV campaign is inspirational and clever, but is essentially a lie.

indeed, for sure every AD I have seen before the infinity ones are blatant lie's, the infinity one is more questionable but to me all the others are clear cut. BT having to lie to market their product.

[Ignitionnet]

Isn't it amazing how we all have electricity and gas in our homes judging by how much people seem to think bandwidth costs we should not be able to afford them at all! I mean after all electricity has to be made then distributed gas has to be collected then distributed yet bandwidth just needs the distribution system which also does not need the safety measures gas or electricity require. Yep, I fail to see how we can afford such items.

BTW, rent a server for anything from £25 and you get that very expensive bandwidth for free!

Feel free to write to your ISP recommending they follow the example of gas and electricity and go with a fully metered system of usage.

While you're at it have a chat with them and ask them about their costs then talk to the gas and electricity distributors and ask them theirs, and while you're at it check out how much you are paying each per month and look at the profits each is making.

You could move to a data centre rather than expecting an operator to build network out to you then let you use it for virtually free. Those server hosting companies didn't have to spend hundreds of pounds per hosted customer digging trenches, building cabinets, etc. Total invalid comparison, about as relevant as expecting it to cost the same to plug an appliance directly into a power station compared with a plug a few hundred miles of pylon mounted cable, substations and underground feeds away.

[_wtf_]

Those server hosting companies didn't have to spend hundreds of pounds per hosted customer digging trenches, building cabinets, etc. Total invalid comparison ...

Didn't the electricity and gas companies have to do the same? Which is the point I was trying to make.

[pip08456]

You cannot compare the supply of gas and electricity to VM. It is a wholely different structure.

[Hugh]

Didn't the electricity and gas companies have to do the same? Which is the point I was trying to make.I am not sure what your proposition is?

I pay a lot more each month for my gas and electricity than I do for my broadband.

Also, VM (well, it's predecessors) had to start from scratch in the 80s and 90s - the Gas and Electricity companies started their infrastructure when they were state-owned institutions.

[pip08456]

I am not sure what your proposition is?

I pay a lot more each month for my gas and electricity than I do for my broadband.

I don't.:D

[Ignitionnet]

A really long time ago, with the money on those investments having been made back more than once since.

Per the above, why not ask how much they pay for use of the national grid, ask the national grid how much profit they are making?

Note the difference in charging methods, pure pay as you use on these, along with the rather limited technical support and additional services involved. They buy the power, they pay for use of the distribution network, they sell you the power.

People have a good complain about the profits the power companies are making, they obviously aren't doing that badly.

I'm pretty sure these guys don't need to invest in 'substation splits' to supply additional current to customers as part of upgrades, upgrade CPE, manage increased demand, etc, etc. The two really aren't comparable.

[pip08456]

A really long time ago, with the money on those investments having been made back more than once since.

Per the above, why not ask how much they pay for use of the national grid, ask the national grid how much profit they are making?

Note the difference in charging methods, pure pay as you use on these, along with the rather limited technical support and additional services involved. They buy the power, they pay for use of the distribution network, they sell you the power.

People have a good complain about the profits the power companies are making, they obviously aren't doing that badly.

I'm pretty sure these guys don't need to invest in 'substation splits' to supply additional current to customers as part of upgrades, upgrade CPE, manage increased demand, etc, etc. The two really aren't comparable.

IIRC the National Grid is jointly owned by the electric companies via a holding company, no doubt for accounting purposes and tax evasion.