Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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 :)

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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).

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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 ----------

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 ----------

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Bet i do.

Proud clan member of www.nthwgaming.co.uk

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

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.

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

You think facts will stop 'em? :D

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

ofcom are happy with 512kb broadband

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

You are having a laugh right?

Incomplete list, obviously, but...

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Hope your not aiming that at me Sir

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

So you don't know either then.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

looks inaccurate to me.

for a start comcast is listed.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r242...D2kKadp2pemule

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Nope you were always provocative :p:

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

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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:

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 ----------

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? ;)

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Me for starters

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

most games use p2p

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

what equipment do virgin media use to throttle p2p software?

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

That may be true worldwide, but Cisco's estimate in 2009 (can't find anything more recent) states that in the UK

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Anyway it's these.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

:clap:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

:xmas:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

:LOL:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Plus the broadband industry in general of course.

Except you just said that they are :confused:

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.

Except that no debate has ever been needed on the subject as the word is so clearly defined; as described above.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Sorry boss. :o:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

This is enforcement of the following sections of the AUP:

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

To pick on those 4 words specifically then adding:

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.

Apologies - it's just getting a little tiresome.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Couldn't agree more :)

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

I knew I'd get him to bite!

Sorry guys!

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

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

You as usual miss the point totally.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.




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

You are indeed a master-baiter; or something like that.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Here we go.

That would be this rule:

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

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Unless you, apparently, have had a "three strikes" letter then VM will not have cut you off.

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

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 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 :)

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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).

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Say 50 quid, a quid a meg?

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

:bsmack:

50 quid a meg more like

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Not far off the £150 I suggested then.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

:english:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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:

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

And what problems would those be?

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

The band-width hogs he mentioned; possibly.

Also, well said, roughbeast.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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."

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

Indeed. :)

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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!

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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.

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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

Re: Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?
 

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