Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by carlwaring

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]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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:

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 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

I knew I'd get him to bite!

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

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

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]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

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.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

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.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Daftlad

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by pip08456

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]

Originally Posted by |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).

Say 50 quid, a quid a meg?