pongo Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 We always sync at just about the maximum and day time speeds are consistently 40Mbps (still awaiting Velocity Plus Upgrade), from about 5pm onwards it starts to drop off until it's peaking at around 1-2 Mbps by 9pm ... Hopefully it's just a teething issue and will settle down but it could become interesting when all the upgrades are done if it's struggling at this stage. But if not then if you can hang on until 1-2am it's back up to full speed again. Presumably they will be able to use traffic management in order to maintain consistency at peak times (eg restricting or blocking p2p and newsgroup traffic etc) ? Otherwise it will be like an arms race - with everyone forced to upgrade just to maintain the previous quality of service (so that a few people can pirate movies etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrFunk Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I'd imagine there's a lot more people trying to watch legit streams than using P2P stuff? Not to mention gaming have less and less physical media. Somebody is just as likely to be downloading a 16gig steam game as pulling down a dodgy version of the Sniper? I wouldn't want to be the person deciding what traffic takes priority when the majority of it is legit and most likely the reason that people want the extra bandwidth in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 I'd imagine there's a lot more people trying to watch legit streams than using P2P stuff? Yep. But the legitimate streams are almost invariably backed by major content distribution networks + regional and local caching etc. Everyone watching the iPlayer, downloading a movie from iTunes or Netflix or playing the same game should have much less impact than a few people maxing out their connection to harvest pirated movies. Which is one of the reasons why many of the arguments around net-neutrality tend to be so weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrFunk Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The problems not the person dishing out the content, it's the number of people wanting to consume bandwidth at the same time.. It doesn't take too many houses on your cabinet to be maxing out their 80Mbps allowance on a steam download, P2P download, movie streaming, mass porn download or whatever else people want to do with it to shit on everybody else. Or so it seems. I hope they get it sorted. A week ago with a household 40Mbps limit their were no issues. At 4pm Speedtest to local server was 40.8Mbps. Right now 18.3Mbps. No doubt by 8-pm this evening it will be hovering around 4-5Mbps if I'm lucky and if the rest of this week is anything to go by more likely 1-2 Mbps with a 300ms+ ping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 If the bottleneck is definitely that local then traffic-managing specific users at peak times (like many ISPs do) would surely be the fairest solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The unfortunate truth about broadband is there are limits, and usage profiles for the average user. You then have light users and those who choose to download the internet every night. If everyone of them had 80Mbps and were frantic users, it would only take ~125-150 of them to simultaneously download full-whack to saturate a 10Gbps pipe. Now take 20,000 broadband customers... You then take a typical traffic flow; ISAM - Wholesale Backhaul - Wholesale Core - ISP Backhaul - ISP Core - ISP Transit Connections there will always be a level of traffic engineering and contention within a network, both at the wholesale and ISP level. That is the commercial reality and is felt by networks all over the world. The majority of UK ISPs employ some form of traffic shaping, transparent proxying or other jiggery pokery. Networks would melt without it. The big challenge is the average user now uses Netflix, in HD, they play online, download DLC, use spotify, have WIFI and facebook on their phones etc etc. This will put unprecedented demand on networks, often without people realising it. This leads to arguments about net neutrality (As Pongo alluded to). Who decides if someMovieBDRIP.rar on NNTP takes priority of Netflix, BitTorrent or similar stuff.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 who decides if someMovieBDRIP.rar on NNTP takes priority of Netflix, BitTorrent or similar stuff.. Let me --> Limit NNTP (and sites offering NNTP via a web interface) to roughly dial-up speeds and block multiple connections. It was never intended as a mechanism for sharing pirated content, only messages. And whilst there are legitimate uses for the BitTorrent protocol, most usage isn't. So there is surely no reason not to slow it right down during times of peak usage. Ditto the big file sharing sites. The legitimate content companies are paying a premium contribution into content distribution + working with the ISPs with local caching etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilbo Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Has anyone managed to hit 80 yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewhatdamaged Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 The people who i know who are now on VDSL Plus have been hugely underwhelmed These are guys who are only a couple of hundred yards from a DSLAM yet are now getting 45mb instead of the 40 on VDSL The upload speed is ace of course, but it seems like the service was overhyped, and no one is going to get anything near 80mb. My speedtest today was hitting 28mb, with my connection at 62mb / 11mb Tried to download a file using NNTP and was getting 4.5MB/s, the exact same speed i got on my 40mb line It is a tad odd, but maybe just not finished yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 who decides if someMovieBDRIP.rar on NNTP takes priority of Netflix, BitTorrent or similar stuff.. Let me --> Limit NNTP (and sites offering NNTP via a web interface) to roughly dial-up speeds and block multiple connections. It was never intended as a mechanism for sharing pirated content, only messages. And whilst there are legitimate uses for the BitTorrent protocol, most usage isn't. So there is surely no reason not to slow it right down during times of peak usage. Ditto the big file sharing sites. The legitimate content companies are paying a premium contribution into content distribution + working with the ISPs with local caching etc. So my legitimate BitTorrent downloads now have to be slowed right down because other people use it illegitimately? Doesn't sound very fair. Not to mention that if that happened people would just use seedboxes, and then all the traffic would be HTTP/FTP/SCP pulling it down again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Also I can't believe any consumer is actually against net neutrality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 No offence, I don't think you understand what seedboxes are or how they work. My internet has gone pants again now, I've heard of a few people this is affecting, not all Wimanx customers so maybe this is something at a wholesale level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somewhatdamaged Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 I'm now connected @ 62/11 and my download speeds are now atrocious, whether http, nntp or https As in like 50KB/s from Microsoft or newsgroups No idea what the hell is going on. Upload speed is awesome @ 1.2MB/s however Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Same here. Sync is fine, basic web browsing is fine, but any kind of file download (legit or not) has been hit with the nerf hammer. Sustained data seems ok though, I can stream video over the NBA Gametime service just fine and YouTube is fine. Looks to me like some sort of aggressive traffic management. Maybe someone has deployed it somewhere in the network and it's still in a heuristic mode or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.