http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/29/carter_net_neut/

I can't help noticing that when I download stuff via BitTorrent, the 
bandwidth usage is typically fairly constant. But - at the stroke of the 
hour - you see a sudden, sharp change in transfer speed.

This could mean one of several things:
- A very large coincidence.
- Large numbers of people disconnect from the swarm exactly on the hour.
- Everybody else's outbound traffic is being throttled.
- Large numbers of people start using the Internet more at the stroke of 
the hour.
- My inbound traffic is being throttled by my ISP.

Apparently the people in charge think it's completely "OK" for ISPs to 
prevent you using the bandwidth you've paid for if they feel like it. 
How sweet of them...

Post a reply to this message

> Apparently the people in charge think it's completely "OK" for ISPs to 
> prevent you using the bandwidth you've paid for if they feel like it. How 
> sweet of them...

I think you'll find you agreed to that when you signed up with the ISP.  If 
you want guaranteed bandwidth then speak to your ISP about it, however you 
might be a bit shocked by the prices...

Post a reply to this message

>> Apparently the people in charge think it's completely "OK" for ISPs to 
>> prevent you using the bandwidth you've paid for if they feel like it. 
>> How sweet of them...
> 
> I think you'll find you agreed to that when you signed up with the ISP.  
> If you want guaranteed bandwidth then speak to your ISP about it, 
> however you might be a bit shocked by the prices...


their Internet access - a piffling 5 Mbit/sec. (But that is *both ways*. 
And if it breaks, they fix it very fast.)

I don't mind so much that I won't always get 8 Mbit/sec at home. 
Sometimes the network is busy. What I object to is the ISP deliberately 
blocking certain types of traffic because they don't want me to use it.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:


> their Internet access - a piffling 5 Mbit/sec. (But that is *both ways*. 
> And if it breaks, they fix it very fast.)

Somewhat unrelated...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/03/ofcom_bt_fibre/

Post a reply to this message

> their Internet access - a piffling 5 Mbit/sec. (But that is *both ways*. 
> And if it breaks, they fix it very fast.)

Yeh, we pay I think about 4K/year for 2mbit each way.

> I don't mind so much that I won't always get 8 Mbit/sec at home. Sometimes 
> the network is busy. What I object to is the ISP deliberately blocking 
> certain types of traffic because they don't want me to use it.

Well that's just because they'd rather give the bandwidth to 100 people 
surfing the bbc site than 1 person downloading illegal stuff from 
bittorrent. (not saying that what you are doing is illegal, but i suspect 
the majority of bittorrent traffic is illegal)

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't mind so much that I won't always get 8 Mbit/sec at home. 
>> Sometimes the network is busy. What I object to is the ISP 
>> deliberately blocking certain types of traffic because they don't want 
>> me to use it.
> 
> Well that's just because they'd rather give the bandwidth to 100 people 
> surfing the bbc site than 1 person downloading illegal stuff from 
> bittorrent. (not saying that what you are doing is illegal, but i 
> suspect the majority of bittorrent traffic is illegal)

That's just it, isn't it? Because a technology *can* be used for 
something illegal, why not punnish *everybody* who uses that technology?

By a similar argument, the CD recorder I bought will only record on 
specially-marked CDs. These CDs cost 10x as much as normal ones "to 
subsidise the music industry against piracy". In other words, if you're 
buying blank CDs and putting them in a music CD recorder, it *must* be 
because you're trying to illegally copy music. Not because, say, you 
happen to be a musician and you want to record your performances. :-P

Post a reply to this message

>> Well that's just because they'd rather give the bandwidth to 100 people 
>> surfing the bbc site than 1 person downloading illegal stuff from 
>> bittorrent. (not saying that what you are doing is illegal, but i suspect 
>> the majority of bittorrent traffic is illegal)
>
> That's just it, isn't it? Because a technology *can* be used for something 
> illegal, why not punnish *everybody* who uses that technology?

It's not just illegal content, it's anything that threatens to use up "too 
much" bandwidth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7336940.stm

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> It's not just illegal content, it's anything that threatens to use up 
> "too much" bandwidth:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7336940.stm

I think one quote sums it up nicely:

"They have priced themselves as cheaply as possible on the assumption 
that people were just going to use e-mail and do a bit of web surfing. 
ISPs needed to stop using the term 'unlimited' to describe their 
services and make it clear that if people wanted to watch hours of 
downloaded video content they would have to pay a higher tariff."

Basically, they sold way more network capacity than they really have, on 
the assumption that most people would only use a fraction of what they 
paid for. Which used to work. But now people like me are trying to 
actually use *all* of the bandwidth they paid for - which doesn't suit 
the ISPs.

Reading about these new-fangled schemes which are supposed to give you 
"up to" 100 Mbit/sec Internet access (once the cables are laid), I'm 
wondering how that is going to affect the picture... Surely a really 
fast link to the Internet is going to drastically worsen the problem.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:18:19 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> This could mean one of several things: - A very large coincidence. -
> Large numbers of people disconnect from the swarm exactly on the hour. -

Maybe not disconnect, but for those using Azureus there is a plugin for 
scheduling bandwidth usage and often it's used on the hour to change 
bandwidth allocations.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> That's just it, isn't it? Because a technology *can* be used for
> something illegal, why not punnish *everybody* who uses that technology?

	They're not punishing anybody. They couldn't care less who is breaking
the law. They want to keep their costs down, and Bittorrent (legal or
otherwise) will put a strain on their infrastructure. However, it's
convenient for them to frame it in a legal sense, so that people don't
argue.

> By a similar argument, the CD recorder I bought will only record on
> specially-marked CDs. These CDs cost 10x as much as normal ones "to
> subsidise the music industry against piracy". In other words, if you're
> buying blank CDs and putting them in a music CD recorder, it *must* be
> because you're trying to illegally copy music. Not because, say, you
> happen to be a musician and you want to record your performances. :-P

	That's likely a result of a lobby - it's not exactly analogous to the
ISP situation. While it may be possible they restrict bittorrent to
avoid legal problems, I suspect it has more to do with lowering costs.

-- 
"I owe, I owe, so it's off to work I go!" - Bumper Sticker


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message