> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?

ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg YouTube 
or iPlayer.  It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load of people 
using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet connection to a halt.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
> 
> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg 
> YouTube or iPlayer.  It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load 
> of people using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet 
> connection to a halt.

More precisely: ISPs are based on the idea that nobody will use all of 
the bandwidth they've paid for, and therefore it's OK for the ISPs to 
provision the backbone with only a tiny fraction of the bandwidth 
actually required.

And now YouTube and iPlayer are changing the way people use the 
Internet, and ISPs are trying to claim that it's YouTube's "fault" for 
being "irresponsible" by using up all this bandwidth - rather than 
admitting that their networks are underprovisioned because it's more 
profitable that way.

Still, once they start charging by the GB rather than the day, the 
"problem" will solve itself...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:05:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
>> 
>> Probably not.  Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the
>> backbone.
> 
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?

Not necessarily.  Bottlenecks can appear between any two nodes in a 
network, not just the last hop.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:06:11 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 4/28/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>>
>> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards.  It's what I've got, and
>> the
> 
> Hardly. Barely average now ... :D

Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I 
would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas 
about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.

My current ISP's policy is basically "we lease you a data pipe; what you 
do with it, as long as you're not disrupting anyone, is your business".

>> a 9' diagonal screen
> 
> want... :D

It's very nice. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:06:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> I don't follow.
>> 
>> Netflix streaming video service.  I use it myself, generally get good
>> results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.
>> 
>> Or hulu.com.  Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.
> 
> BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what
> you see on TV.

True, but it isn't terrible, either.  I occasionally use it myself 
through a proxy in Scotland, generally does OK.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/29/10 07:54, scott wrote:
>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
> 
> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
> YouTube or iPlayer.  It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a load

	Depends on the country you live in.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/29/10 12:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I 
> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas 
> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
	
	I think they lost the battle for unlimited (as in it is currently
unlimited). The recent ruling on net neutrality bodes ill - but what
makes you sure DSL won't change in the future?

	Me? I hate contracts.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:51:10 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 04/29/10 07:54, scott wrote:
>>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
>> 
>> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
>> YouTube or iPlayer.  It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a
>> load
> 
> 	Depends on the country you live in.

Whether it's technically possible or not doesn't depend on where you live 
at all.

Whether it's *legal* or not is an entirely different matter, and proving 
an ISP is using traffic shaping can be difficult to do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:58 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 04/29/10 12:12, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
>> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
>> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
> 	
> 	I think they lost the battle for unlimited (as in it is currently
> unlimited). The recent ruling on net neutrality bodes ill - but what
> makes you sure DSL won't change in the future?

Nothing makes me sure, just that my current situation is one I can live 
with.  If the circumstances change, then I'll change at my earliest 
opportunity.  If they want to keep me as a customer, they won't mess with 
it.

> 	Me? I hate contracts.

Same here.  My DSL modem died and to get a replacement provided, I had to 
agree to another year of service.  Of course, that was more than a year 
ago so now it's a moot point, but at the time, I was annoyed because it 
was *their* hardware and not mine, so basically my choice was to drop 
them or sign up for another year (or buy my own DSL modem and be even 
more unsupported than I am now).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/29/2010 2:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.

Yeah, I've read about that. I think they backed down on it a bit. Once 
FiOS is available, I'll probably jump from cable to that. Time Warner 
isn't exactly innocent, either.

> My current ISP's policy is basically "we lease you a data pipe; what you
> do with it, as long as you're not disrupting anyone, is your business".
>
>>> a 9' diagonal screen
>>
>> want... :D
>
> It's very nice. :-)
>
> Jim


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message