giganews (usenet)

[REM]

Originally Posted by andip1967

Just banged SSL on Giganews port 563 and back up to full speeds

Do you find the processing power of decoding the SSL impacts your d/l speed much?

I'm running News Leecher under Parallels 6 on a 2.6Ghx Mac Pro Quad and there is quite a speed drop when using SSL.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by REM

Do you find the processing power of decoding the SSL impacts your d/l speed much?

It doesn't impact it at all for me on a Windows 7 box with a 2.4 GHz quad core and 3GB RAM. I enabled SSL on Giganews, but I was initially using port 563 which is still throttled, but I switched to port 443 and I'm back to hitting about 19.5 Mbps again, which is the same speed I used to get before the throttling came into effect and I wasn't using SSL.

[carbon60]

Originally Posted by REM

Do you find the processing power of decoding the SSL impacts your d/l speed much?

I'm running News Leecher under Parallels 6 on a 2.6Ghx Mac Pro Quad and there is quite a speed drop when using SSL.

I'm running NewsLeecher under VMware Fusion 2 on a 2.4Ghz Black MacBook Core 2 Duo and and get full 20Mbit using SSL (at least before the current issues). Other operations on the laptop are slowed down though.

I just need to upgrade to 10.6 (I've had the box for over a year) so I can try Giganews' new Mimo client since it's a Mac application.

[REM]

Originally Posted by carbon60

I'm running NewsLeecher under VMware Fusion 2 on a 2.4Ghz Black MacBook Core 2 Duo and and get full 20Mbit using SSL (at least before the current issues). Other operations on the laptop are slowed down though.

I just need to upgrade to 10.6 (I've had the box for over a year) so I can try Giganews' new Mimo client since it's a Mac application.

I tried Mimo last week. I think it was about 5 minutes before I uttered the word CR4P and promptly removed it from my system. I found it lousy.

I got to know and love NL so anything else is going to have a hard time making me change. Having to boot up WIN7 in Parallels is worth it.


I think I have worked out why my speed it reduced when using SSL. I expect on a 20Mb/s connection it would have no impact on my machine either, maybe even 50.

[The_Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by Sigma

If you use SSL does it get round the traffic shaping? Comments I've read seem to suggest that that's the case.

Why couldn't they just leave the system as it is? I thought that the traffic management was there to deal with the "5%" of people downloading/uploading large amounts. Now my connection is being crippled with traffic shaping as well as traffic management and I'm losing anywhere from 60% to 95% of my connection speed for up to 12 hours a day. I'm not buying the "it's not financially viable not to have it" thing at all, considering Virgin Media's profits are on the up.

because they are slowly but surely realising, that it is not those of us that download and upload a fair bit, but is in fact the non-computer/internet literate generation they have irresponsibly released onto the internet with all their dam "on demand" services and time shifted tv !! that are sucking up hugeeeeee amounts of bandwidth by streaming HD material to their TV sets all night, and i think you'll also find that the 30 million trillion gaming machines all hooking up to play online is also placing a massive draw on resources everywhere,when lets face it, it was not exactly designed for that.

I too am seeing really really dismal speeds of VM newsgroup access at various times of the day, yet if i shift into my astraweb account, using SSL and port 563 instead of 119 (for theVM servers) i am seeing nearly double the speed at times. Trouble is my astra web account is for a pre-paid block of bandwidth, so don't want to hit it that much, once they stop doing free access via VM, and they will at some point, i'll shift to a full astraweb account with unlimited bandwidth, i have been very impressed with not only the speed and stability of their servers but also the massive retention period

[Ignitionnet]

No, it is you guys who download and upload a fair bit, just now the 'non-computer/internet literate generation' are actually using a few GB here and there they don't compensate as much as they used to by paying the same but using considerably less so average usage is higher

Previously Usenet whores were downloading DVDs and 'non-computer/internet literate generation' members were browsing a bit, now Usenet whores are downloading Blu Rays and the 'non-computer/internet literate generation' are rude enough to stream a bit here and there along with both playing games online and downloading the odd legitimately purchased one, along with this prices per Mbit have dropped too.

[The_Gunslinger]

Thing is it's not just

non-computer/internet literate generation' are actually using a few GB here and there

It's a lot more than that, and more than here and there, as they are spending hours streaming high def material every day, downlaoders don't always sit there constantly downloading huge amounts !

Take me for example, i wouild be classed as a heavy downloader by some, however, i downloaded nothing today, and when i do download, it is usually done and dusted in 2 hours, max 3 ... and that is at the crippled speeds, whereas mr jones next door might stream one full movie and 2 tv shows at full speed ... wonder who's used more bandwidth there ?

And yes, i will agree with you, there will be a small percentage (although i suspect it is smaller than people think) that are grabbing the BluRay stuff, the rest of us know it's not worth downloading stuff that size that much.
But, at crippled speeds they are going to be downloading less per hour than streaming media family, just now with the speed restrictions targeting users specifically (like they promised not to !) said download whore is now going to be downloading longer, perpetuating said problem !


The overall increase in non-computer related traffic as you put it has risen tenfold (and that's a conservative guestimate) compared to those that you could categorise as download whores


But it doesnt give them the right to assume that anyone using said type of programs are immediately bad, some of us just want the dam speed we paid for, without some corporate a*shat saying "oh that's bad can't have you using that"

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by The_Gunslinger

Thing is it's not just

It's a lot more than that, and more than here and there, as they are spending hours streaming high def material every day, downlaoders don't always sit there constantly downloading huge amounts !

Take me for example, i wouild be classed as a heavy downloader by some, however, i downloaded nothing today, and when i do download, it is usually done and dusted in 2 hours, max 3 ... and that is at the crippled speeds, whereas mr jones next door might stream one full movie and 2 tv shows at full speed ... wonder who's used more bandwidth there ?

And yes, i will agree with you, there will be a small percentage (although i suspect it is smaller than people think) that are grabbing the BluRay stuff, the rest of us know it's not worth downloading stuff that size that much.
But, at crippled speeds they are going to be downloading less per hour than streaming media family, just now with the speed restrictions targeting users specifically (like they promised not to !) said download whore is now going to be downloading longer, perpetuating said problem !


The overall increase in non-computer related traffic as you put it has risen tenfold (and that's a conservative guestimate) compared to those that you could categorise as download whores


But it doesnt give them the right to assume that anyone using said type of programs are immediately bad, some of us just want the dam speed we paid for, without some corporate a*shat saying "oh that's bad can't have you using that"

Whereas I agree with you about the rise in "normal" usage now causing problems, I have to disagree about the "download/upload" you are referring to as yourself and others doing the same. (and I'm not blameless!).

I have and still do download on occasion something that is not avaiable elsewhere. It has never, to my knowledge, been available even if I'm prepared to pay for it (and believe me, I've searched!) and looks like it never will be.

However, copyright is copyright, I'm willing to take the risk but the "powers that be" are under so much preassure from the "powers that have" that eventually all ISP's will be restricting it or banning it completely.

Like it or not it will happen. Then and only then will we see if there is 1-5% of users ruining it for the rest of their customers or if indeed the ISP's have critically underestimated what internet usage will be with all the streaming etc.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Whereas I agree with you about the rise in "normal" usage now causing problems, I have to disagree about the "download/upload" you are referring to as yourself and others doing the same. (and I'm not blameless!).

I have and still do download on occasion something that is not avaiable elsewhere. It has never, to my knowledge, been available even if I'm prepared to pay for it (and believe me, I've searched!) and looks like it never will be.

However, copyright is copyright, I'm willing to take the risk but the "powers that be" are under so much preassure from the "powers that have" that eventually all ISP's will be restricting it or banning it completely.

Like it or not it will happen. Then and only then will we see if there is 1-5% of users ruining it for the rest of their customers or if indeed the ISP's have critically underestimated what internet usage will be with all the streaming etc.

History suggests on your latter point its isp's underestimating.

O2 traffic shape very heavily and then capped their unlimited product at 30gig and they still extremely congested.
Plusnet also had no noticeable relief when they started shaping it is only when they added capacity afterwards things started getting back under control for them.

[qasdfdsaq]

I presume you mean O2's non-LLU product? Since that runs over BT's network (and is basically rebranded BT broadband) I'm not surprised. The LLU product has much higher caps, very little to no shaping and is still uncongested.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by The_Gunslinger

Thing is it's not just

It's a lot more than that, and more than here and there, as they are spending hours streaming high def material every day, downlaoders don't always sit there constantly downloading huge amounts !

Average utilisation is still pretty low. If these people were spending hours streaming they wouldn't be paying for TV and wouldn't be able to grab that stuff at full speed anyway as they'd have the STM hammer brought down on them.

Most people still run on 10Mbps services, you just can't stream HD for hours on end on that service.

Virgin know the types and amounts of traffic traversing their network. People smacking Usenet for 300GB/month are still by a mile heavier users than Joe Average with their XBox who does 30GB/month.

The capacity crunch is because more people are using more, sure, but people downloading heavily are still big time outliers. 100 people using 10GB/month more is the same 1TB increase as 1 person using 1TB/month more, yes, however they are paying up to 100 times more for the pleasure.

So long as people are paying for what they are using or costs are coming down sufficiently that people are paying for their increased video usage it's a non-issue. Outlying users do not and have never paid appropriate rates for their usage.

We could go to pay per GB though if you think that would be fairer?

---------- Post added at 09:45 ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

History suggests on your latter point its isp's underestimating.

O2 traffic shape very heavily and then capped their unlimited product at 30gig and they still extremely congested.
Plusnet also had no noticeable relief when they started shaping it is only when they added capacity afterwards things started getting back under control for them.

Plusnet themselves quite strongly disagree with your second comment. It should be remembered that Plusnet started shaping in 2005, at that time P2P was a much larger proportion of traffic than now. No You Tube, no XBox Live HD streaming, no iPlayer, much less streaming, no question.

Your first applies to O2 Access only, shaping isn't even switched on on O2's LLU network which covers the overwhelming majority of their customers.

[Chrysalis]

O2 access is correct nevertherless?

incidently O2 LLU is now shaped for new customers, and some people are reporting congestion on it.

Regarding plusnet as I recall they turned on shaping, the complaints kept coming and coming until BT brought the company and added new BT centrals, only then did the complaints stop (or slow down).

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

O2 access is correct nevertherless?

incidently O2 LLU is now shaped for new customers, and some people are reporting congestion on it.

Regarding plusnet as I recall they turned on shaping, the complaints kept coming and coming until BT brought the company and added new BT centrals, only then did the complaints stop (or slow down).

O2 Access is absolutely correct however this is a small subset of O2's customers and you didn't specify that you just said 'O2' which is disingenuous. It's like referring to Virgin Media's off-net operation with the label 'Virgin Media' without any qualification, there are quite different policies on-net and off-net on both.

As I said O2's LLU network hasn't had its shaping turned on.

There have been a few isolated reports of congestion, yes, these have, thus far, been addressed swiftly and capacity upgrades are ongoing - see O2 / Be's planned works list, those are hardware upgrades.

Regarding Plusnet you recall quite incorrectly. BT have never run Plusnet's capacity planning nor did they add capacity to Plusnet's network, this is managed by ex-Plusnet staff. Plusnet had teething troubles with their shaping but once this was complete they had the most advanced application management in the UK.

There was a brief period when Plusnet saw issues with higher priority traffic and this was addressed both through adjustments to their management platform and addition of capacity.

[The_Gunslinger]

Some good/fair points made to my comments above, time, as pip says will prove one way or another, but i can guarantee you something, they will never back down off the "heavy downloaders are evil" soap box, just wont happen, regardless of the results.
But for the record, and i don't think ISP's are solely to blame for this, there has been a major underestimation on the loadings being placed by every man and his dog trying to stream stuff, remember downloaders can run their file grabbing in quiet hours, we all have for a long time now, but the internet has no "quiet period" as such, just as streaming stuff is always going to be tied to regular sort of hours, with the evenings getting hammered compared to say 2am through 5am GMT

Ignitionnet, heavy users will always be heavy users i agree, but as you said the general usage is up hugely, and it's not down to increased activity from heavy users or increased copyright infringement
(i am getting a little p****d off with the constant banging on about that - they need to go after those downloading, duplicating and selling said material, thats where the loss of money is coming from !.... although i can see why, couple of years ago, i could buy 2 pretty new films at the bootsale for about 5 or 6 quid, if they didnt work you took em back and they swapped them no questions asked, no replies like "oh sorry sir you bought that over a week ago, and you don't have your receipt so we cant help you" that you get from shops that charge you 5 times as much !)

Anyway.... as you will i am sure agree, the heavier users, yes i would fall into that group i guess, are also those paying the considerably higher premiums for the higher speeds and bandwidth, i know i have been since i switched up to cable broadband directly from dial-up to 10meg ! which if i remember correctly was the fastest at the time available to me, i then went to the 20, and subsequently the 50 ... and will probably go to the 100 if and when it's available subject to a couple of concerns.

..... so i don't want to hear about a bunch of freeloaders on heavily subsidised tariffs banging on about equality of service, or people preaching that the service for said groups is being affected by the heavier users.... if the heavier users didnt pay the inflated prices for the top tier services, the lower tiers would not be half as cheap! and if they were not as cheap there would not be as many users in total and the congestion would be reduced .... you get (or should get) what you pay for !

[qasdfdsaq]

Actually it's completely the other way round. People on higher tariffs pay considerably less proportionally for their bandwidth, heavier users pay far less per unit bandwidth used, and it's the bottom tariffs that are the cash cows. People on 10mb pay a massive premium for the amount they use and subsidize the higher tariffs. Without the majority of users on 10mb using bugger all subsidizing the higher tariffs, we wouldn't have 50mb or 100mb for <£40 a month.

30mb users get 3x the bandwidth, 3.3x more download allowance under STM yet only pay 1/3rd more compared to 10mb. 50mb costs 22% more again, but you get 67% more speed and no DS throttling.

You think you're paying a premium for 50mb? If you were paying the same amount for your bandwidth as the 10mb, you should be paying at least £105 a month. You're the one on the heavily subsidized tariff.