Should Virgin Media Throttle p2p traffic?

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Say 50 quid, a quid a meg?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

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]

Originally Posted by pip08456

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]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

[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]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

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.