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.