Internet issues?

[pongo 3,529]

No offence, I don't think you understand what seedboxes are or how they work.

That aside, if people are using seedboxes hosted elsewhere then that considerably reduces the load on the local internet since people will no longer be maxing out the upstream. And most casual users are not going to bother or will not pay (especially those using bittorrent because they are too cheap to pay for content). So that would already be a result, right ?

 

Seedboxes can be blocked. The users still have to get the content down. Yes they can connect securely. But if they are consistently maxing out their domestic connections to such an extent that this affects other uses then they can be slow-laned. From the perspective of other ISP users that's the issue right ?

[somewhatdamaged 70]

Internet barely usable now. What's frustrating as there is quite obviously something going on, but we will never hear about it. WiManx will never tell you, and everyone and their dog knows you would never, ever hear it from MT

 

Raised a ticket with WiManx about it, not holding my breath though.

[ans 1,598]

Seedboxes can be blocked

You think it's ok for the ISP to throttle/block your HTTP traffic?

[HeliX 1,809]

 

Also I can't believe any consumer is actually against net neutrality.

There are plenty of good arguments against net neutrality. The best being that it is a myth from the outset. Because all data is not equal - the commercial content providers and best hosting companies invest huge amounts in infrastructure, regional data-centres etc - and also typically work with the telecoms and ISPs to help ensure the quality of their delivery. When you also factor in the peering agreements and other contracts it should be perfectly obvious that paid content deserves priority. It is consumer demand for paid content which has been responsible for the investment which has resulted in the relatively fast internet we have today.

 

However - all that besides - I basically don't see any reason why people should not pay according to how much data they actually consume. The same as electricity.

 

ETA: re your previous: There is no reason why seedboxes cannot be blocked as they are identified. Though obviously the best outcome is to manage the networks such that a few people do not slow the thing down for everyone else. Nobody needs to be anywhere near maxing-out a VDSL connection. Netflix in full HD + 3D only requires a steady 15Mbps - and that content can be delivered direct from the ISP.

 

Yes, the current state is a free market. Which is fine. Allowing prioritization of traffic will lead to powers being abused by ISPs.

Why cap people to 15mb/s? Why should my game downloads take much longer than they currently do?

Edited February 6, 2015 by HeliX

[joeyconcrete 167]

Why should my game downloads take much longer than they currently do?

 

 

Ultimately it comes down to money. If you look towards the UK, you have the following:

• Capped products. Consistent performance but limited to 'x' GB a month, then penalities.
• Unlimited Broadband. No shaping. No caps. They will monitor data transfer and sting you with their AUP (this happens a lot).
• Unlimited Broadband. No caps. They will however shape traffic they consider "bulk" which, rightly or wrongly, will include NNTP/BitTorrent/FTPS/etc.

The above is based on experience of delivering UK broadband on different underlying wholesale networks.

 

To put that into context, in the UK, ISPs are charged for the average Mbps on their broadband interconnect. Imagine for each Mbps this is £50+ per month A residential user downloading 80Mbps solid for most of the month (endless list of NZB downloads) could quite easily cost the ISP £400, without factoring in anything else. You can see why they'd quickly be capped, booted, etc. This would be on a reputable network. A business with modest usage (flat usage profile) could comfortably tick away, and their traffic would blend in.

 

The LLU networks (e.g. Sky/Virgin) have their own network but you will find on these, you will get heavy peak-time contention and brutal AUP clauses.

 

It is a tough one.

Edited February 6, 2015 by joeyconcrete

[pongo 3,529]

You think it's ok for the ISP to throttle/block your HTTP traffic?

Yes. To the extent that I think that reasonable use comes into play with respect to shared resources - especially at peak times.

 

Allowing prioritization of traffic will lead to powers being abused by ISPs.

Why cap people to 15mb/s? Why should my game downloads take much longer than they currently do?

(I did not say that people should be capped at 15Mbps.)

 

The point of carefully managing and prioritising traffic at peak times would be to try to ensure that the majority of customers get an acceptable experience. Rather than seeing that as a nefarious plot which will be exploited - I actually see that as something which ISPs can do in order to try to maximise the customer experience given that resources are not unlimited.

 

Also - from the ISP point of view. They need to be able to look at the network and know, for example, that early evening until bed time a significant proportion of their customers are going to be frustrated if, say, the iPlayer or Sky or gaming is not working well. What the most customers are using is what the most people are paying for. So obviously that takes some priority.

Edited February 6, 2015 by pongo

[ans 1,598]

 

You think it's ok for the ISP to throttle/block your HTTP traffic?

Yes. To the extent that I think that reasonable use comes into play with respect to shared resources - especially at peak times.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase.

 

You think it's ok for the ISP to choose what HTTP traffic they're going to throttle to you? And I'm not talking about volume, I'm talking throughput.

 

I do have a lot of sympathy for the ISPs when they have customers who use their connection 24/7 to download movies they're probably never going to have time to watch, but deciding to throttle bandwidth to me so that my 40mb DSL connection takes 15 minutes to download a legitimate 200mb file is crap.

 

The thing is, whatever has changed over the last week or so has severely reduced the quality of service. This isn't a degradation due to an increase in users, or some new streaming service that sucks the bandwidth for everyone, or even patch day for a major game release. Something has changed that means my latency is no longer a rock solid 20-25ms, but fluctuates between 80 and 150.

 

My guess is that as part of this new VDSL+ thing, some new tech has gone into the network somewhere that's supposed to intelligently throttle traffic. And it's doing a piss poor job.

[HeliX 1,809]

I do have a lot of sympathy for the ISPs when they have customers who use their connection 24/7 to download movies they're probably never going to have time to watch, but deciding to throttle bandwidth to me so that my 40mb DSL connection takes 15 minutes to download a legitimate 200mb file is crap.

 

 

Those people are the worst.

 

 

[pongo 3,529]

You think it's ok for the ISP to choose what HTTP traffic they're going to throttle to you?

Yes. But in your example it seems possibly extreme and, as you say, perhaps not how it is supposed to be.

 

The way the models are evolving I think it is inevitable that mass audience commercial streaming, gaming etc is going to get priority. And some downloads. Eg - if a family start downloading a movie from iTunes at 6pm on a Friday they probably want to watch it the same evening. I think it is inevitable that the stuff which most customers want at peak hours will get priority. The most people will be satisfied with the service.

 

Maybe we just have to get used to doing downloads off peak.

[monty2k04 3]

I have upgraded from Ultima to the plus on Thursday, last evening was the first time since having Ultima that I could actually stream HD content without buffering (even having the green box only 5 mtrs for the house) - long may it continue.

[ans 1,598]

Maybe we just have to get used to doing downloads off peak.

The problem there is with all this, is that the service was fine and the massive downloaders seemed to happily co-exist with the normal users. For whatever reason, a policy or product seems to have been introduced that negatively affects both those people. Why would you want that?

[somewhatdamaged 70]

Downloading a 250MB AMD driver this morning. 15KB/s, going to take 28 minutes

Edited February 7, 2015 by somewhatdamaged

[pongo 3,529]

Why would you want that?

?? Clearly I don't. I want it to work the best for most customers.

 

Downloading a 250MB AMD driver this morning. 0.2MB / s going to take 28 minutes

Are you sure you haven't got other issues ?

[ans 1,598]

?? Clearly I don't. I want it to work the best for most customers.

Seemed to work just fine before...

[pongo 3,529]

Seemed to work just fine before...

5 posts above is someone saying that for the first time their streaming has been working. Streaming on our ADSL2+ seems much improved the previous 2 evenings too. Granted that's 2 completely anecdotal examples and other issues could be in play.

 

But we are back to the basic question of whether prioritisation is legitimate. I say it is. Even if it maybe needs tweaking.

Edited February 7, 2015 by pongo