Traffic shaping everything (inc newsgroups) - Page 9

DieDieMyDarling · 17-01-2007, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

im not missing any point at all I simply do not agree.

---------- Post added at 14:37 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------

funny used to be able to manage that on 512k before strange why you seem to think it cant be done now???????

The internet has moved along quite a lot since the days of 512k, you'd be hard pushed to survive (comfortably) on 512k now, if you play the latest games online, download music/videos on demand, stream a webcam etc.

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet, is how upload affects this traffic shaping. Usually while downloading from Newsgroups i can max out, which uses up maybe 20-30k upstream to support it? So if i open a webpage or download a bunch of emails at the same time, it can either slow down my newsgroup connection or bottleneck and disconnect me totally.

Now with this traffic shaping, even though i'm only downloading at say 2mb (when that's my cap) i get the same problem if i browse or check emails at the same time, so is the upstream being capped too?

17-01-2007, 14:58

512 using netlimiter would manage easy

17-01-2007, 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

TBH I dont tend to download at peak times as I do realise I could have an impact on the local network so I happily "traffic shape" myself by not using the bandwidth. I am happy with the proposals as it allows me to download when the net isnt busy and just surf play games whatever at peak times which im sure if most these guys were honest is what they do anyway.
Most people do not leech and those that do a lot tend to use p2p which uses upload and download bandwidth and slows a machine but in my limited experience of the technology doesnt run anywhere near 10 meg unless your lucky. I wonder what size files most people download <100 meg? an iso say 700 meg? so the difference would be what on 10 meg it takes 12 mins ish? on 5 meg 24 mins 3 meg 35 mins? it hardly seems much of a big deal to me?

Good Post Zing

r00t · 17-01-2007, 15:21

After being on ADSL "upto 8Mbit" and suffering throttling, I couldn't care less.
If those that are abusing get capped speeds then tough.
I'm happy to just download a linux ISO now and then

Nomark · 17-01-2007, 15:38

You need to go search the Telewest Forum on Digital Spy.. There is a massive thread on there about shaping/throttling/capping as it has been on the Telewest network for a while now.

From my reading of it they are using something that exists on the Cisco UBR called STM.

From what I can see it doesn't care how much you download in a day/week/month etc.

It works between 1600 and Midnight and during those hours it measures your Download Throughput over a 15 minute period. If you breach the rules put in place regards acceptable amount of data downloaded in that period (no idea what they are but I am sure you can find out by monitoring when shaping kicks in after a download starts) you get 'sin binned' for a couple of hours at a lower download/upload rate. If then at the end of that period you continue to download and breach the rules again you get another 2 hour penalty, this continues until Midnight where all the rules are turned off and you can batter your connection to your hearts content until 1600 the next day.

HTH

DieDieMyDarling · 17-01-2007, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

512 using netlimiter would manage easy

Oh no it wouldn't.

17-01-2007, 15:44

errrr yes it would, Gaming uses upload more than download ,download uses download obviously and streaming a webcam uses some of your upload if you limit upload to your webcam and limit download it would work easy

Mr Angry · 17-01-2007, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

imo its not a big deal its a mountain being made out of molehill. I would have thought someone who argues equallity on here pretty much all the time would agree that traffic shaping is going to be the way for a fair evenly shared network for all the users instead today your arguing just for your own rights on this... hmmmm interesting to me this is

Since it's not a big deal in your opinion, and in the balance of fairness and equality, why don't you offer to pay the 50% of my service that I'm not getting?

Your "I would have thought" notion would hold water were it not for the glaringly obvious fact that it isn't, nor was it ever intended to be, an "evenly shared network". Hence there are people paying different amounts for different levels of service.

17-01-2007, 15:48

lol

stairpotato · 17-01-2007, 15:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Thus, legally at least, NTL are covered.

No they're not - not even close. It all comes down to what is reasonable. It could be - for instance - reasonable for NTL to impose usage limits. It's not reasonable for NTL to impose limits without providing the customer with a mechanism for checking whether they have exceeded those limits - or alerting the customer that they maybe about to exceed the limits.

I have considerable experience of this - and NTL would get laughed out of court.

---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Moan moan bloody moan.
If any of you were subject to a poor connection due to others tanking a connection you would all be moaning why am I suffering because of these.
NTL are damned if they do and damned if they dont.
Still least this gives some of you something to moan about so at least your happy about that eh

Forgive me - but it seems like you're consistently missing the point.

No one forces NTL to sell a 10 meg (or any other speed) service.

No one forces them to under-invest in capacity.

If they sell a 10 meg service - it's not unreasonable for the customer to expect to get that service.

NTL clearly feel the need to traffic shape because they're selling a service that they can't currently deliver (and charging a premium for!). On that basis it's really not unreasonable to moan about it!

17-01-2007, 16:03

Im not missing any point im just being reasonable about it. Do you realise I was actually banned for arguing about bandwidth on here about 2 years ago? I let it wind me up that someone was getting more than me and I got quite insulting. I realise how stupid and petty and childish I was and set things straight

stairpotato · 17-01-2007, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Im not missing any point im just being reasonable about it.

...I don't know what can be more reasonable than expecting to get the service that you are paying for.....

...or expecting that if there are limits on use - that they're communicated clearly....

...i think you're confusing apathy with reason....

Stuart · 17-01-2007, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by stairpotato

No they're not - not even close. It all comes down to what is reasonable. It could be - for instance - reasonable for NTL to impose usage limits. It's not reasonable for NTL to impose limits without providing the customer with a mechanism for checking whether they have exceeded those limits - or alerting the customer that they maybe about to exceed the limits.

I have considerable experience of this - and NTL would get laughed out of court.

You are assuming one thing. That NTL won't be providing a mechanism to check. We don't know if they will, but we don't know if they won't either.

stairpotato · 17-01-2007, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

You are assuming one thing. That NTL won't be providing a mechanism to check. We don't know if they will, but we don't know if they won't either.

They didn't provide a mechanism when services were being sold as limited.....

....so it'd be strange for them to start now they're being sold as unlimited....

...and of course they're not providing a mechanism to those on the 'trial' at the moment.

What makes me most cross about the whole thing - is that NTL go some of the way towards redeeming themselves - only to pull a stupid, i'll-conceived stunt like this trial....

17-01-2007, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by stairpotato

...I don't know what can be more reasonable than expecting to get the service that you are paying for.....

...or expecting that if there are limits on use - that they're communicated clearly....

...i think you're confusing apathy with reason....

nah im just not gonna moan about something over which the only control I have is to leave NTL which im not gonna do