Virgin Media will for the first time target peer-to-peer traffic for throttling on its cable network, joining most DSL broadband providers. In a phased introduction due to be completed by next summer it will cut the bandwidth available to peer-to-peer protocols and Usenet at peak times, for all customers. Until now the firm had …
\0/ More upload.
So basically they are increasing my upload rate for no extra charge? And I can still download whatever I like however I like, as long as I don't do it too much at peak times.
Sounds fair and good to me.
Why complain on a news website...
when you can email the VM CEO direct?
How would they shape Usenet over SSL?
From the point of view of identifying it it's really not hard.
'Oh look, someone has 10 SSL connections to news.giganews.com. I wonder what those could be?'
download amount is the answer and its Globe download from everything Not just from newsgroups
your better off dead ted your hogging my oxygen with all that jogging.
Or maybe VM should just be honest about it's XXL package, all this freetard crap is amusing . Virgin/ntl/telewest it has always been the same launch a new supa dupa high end connection get the punters on it then change and restrict it.
No other industry gets away with the pirate tactics the ISP's use , lets lie that we put fibre into your house, lets lie that it is unlimited and unmetered, lets get you to agree to a contract then change the TC'S when ever we like and we get over subscribed in order to avoid investing in infrastructure.
I mean imagine some one complaining about that, think about this you buy a mobile phone get it home your told you have 3g free unlimited texts, then the next week your Moby OP send you a text saying hay you overuse this thing dude , so now if you wants to send a picture text you have to do it after midnight your free unlimited text are set at a max of 100 a month and if use the web browser on your phone for more than 10 mins you will loose your 3g speed.
They would not last long funny how we will take it in the ass from a ISP though.
(and before anyone starts on the fibre and coax into the house from the mux, i am the one with the degree in non linear optics)
50mb service is going from 1.5mb upload to 5mb with an 65% cut back if you upload 6GB (between 3pm-8pm) that still is 1.75mb upload (if you really need to upload 6GB of data)
still want to know if there is an download limiter in play but i guessing VM would not do that on the XXL service (the link does have N/A on it so i assume its upload lowering only)
and also this title is Very miss leading from the register as well as its NOT P2P throttling if it was there be No daly cap it be like Tiscali and there lame 4KB/s bit torrent speeds at peak times (something like 1pm to midnight lol)
the title should say VM is updating the Traffic Management for Faster Upload Traffic Management as they have affect now given 2x more data before the traffic man kicks in
My bytes are more important than your bytes
Wish people would lay off with the my bytes are more important than your bytes crap.
They offer an all you can eat service and people whine about those eating more than they do.
If you eat too much the provider takes away your cutlery and pretends it is something to do with fair and usage.
Instead of installing all this packet inspection and throttling crap and continuing to lie about unlimited services they should install dynamic pricing crap and make charges which properly reflect the cost of service provision. Users can then decide how important their bytes are and what they are prepared to pay for them at what time of day.
nothing to worry about
Encrypting your torrent transfers is pretty standard and as simple as checking a box in your client config. With encryption enabled they cant know what protocols you are using.
When you're looking at network traffic identifying torrent traffic is trivial, encrypted or not.
If you believe that encrypting your torrents will prevent your ISP seeing that they are torrents then you know nothing about networking. I remember the same crap being spouted a few years ago by people claiming they could "tunnel traffic through http" so their ISP would not be able to differentiate it from ordinary http traffic. That didn't work either.
There are a few ISPs who dont perform "deep packet inspections" or throttle whatsoever. They also state exactly what your monthly allowance is.
I pay a bit extra from one of these ISPs (Fast) and having previously suffered AOL and sky, I would recommend it to anyone.
The day my ISP starts interfering with my connection in any way, would be the day I get my MAC code.
But many of these providers are actually going through somebody else's network and have no control over what is happening in that network. Yes plenty of smaller ISPs buy their own connectivity from a larger ISP.
I'm not just talking BT IPStream customers here, but that one is a big issue. I know many people who think they've switched from BT to another provider, but their new provider simply routes through BT central. What if BT mess with that traffic?
How can 10Mb, 30Mb and 50Mb be increased to ...
"Uploads for customers on the most expensive "XXL" tariff will be accelerated from up to 1.5Mbit/s to 5Mbit/s. For "XL" subscribers the upgrade will offer uploads at 2Mbit/s, compared to the current 768Kbit/s. Theoretical maximum upload speeds on "L" and "M" packages will double from 512Kbit/s to 1Mbit/s."</i>
10MB, 20MB and 50MB DOWNLOAD. The increases are to the UPLOAD speeds of those packages and something a lot of people have wanted for quite a while now.
I use a server to get all my torrents then download them via either ftp or http depending on my location.
The issue with P2P
Broadly speaking, network components share network resources amongst users on a per TCP connection basis. UDP transfers are typically expected to be brief (e.g. DNS queries) and therefore, insignificant. This works fine with traditional applications like http and ftp, where a single TCP connection or a few TCP connections are used per application. However, P2P applications effectively "cheat the system" by establishing large numbers of distinct TCP connections with multiple destinations. Many P2P applications also use UDP, again using multiple "connections" with multiple destinations. The end effect is that P2P applications grab way more than their fair share of available network resources, resulting in poor performance of other non-P2P applications and complaints from the affected users.
VPNs or applications using nntp, ssl or ssh on single TCP connections are limited by the normal mechanisms, won't grab unreasonable chunks of available resources and are therefore, unlikely to attract attention for reasons of bandwidth usage.
Move along please....
"As part of the changes, "XXL" subscribers will for the first time have their connection restricted based on the amount of data they upload. There will still be no limits on the volume of data they can download."
Nothing to see here for us Usenet users then ;-) S.E.P.
STM and Shaping are different things
I don't think you are understanding the difference between STM and Shaping.
For NNTP and P2P these types of traffic will be shaped, regardless of how much you download/upload based on the total load on VMs network.
I think I read NNTP and P2P will be restricted to a MAX of 20% of the network traffic.
So yes, usenet users will be affected by this.
Interested to know how SSL usenet and encrypted P2P will be detected though, if anyone can explain?
you can still download your Pr0n as before, no restrictions then!
No guarantee of upload speeds shown
I've called Virgin Media customer service on many an occasion as my upload speed hovered around the 0.01Mbps mark (when I had the 10Mbps service and then the 20Mbps service), in the end the solution turned out to be getting 50Mbps!!! No other option as I couldn't get out of the 12 month contract, apparently even if I could prove the broadband was faulty the TV and Phone worked fine so I'd have to buy out of those services.
On many of my calls the agents insisted that they couldn't do anything about upload speed as it's dependant upon the site you're uploading to. They wouldn't guarantee upload speeds, so goof luck if you switch to Virgin hoping for a good upload speed!
Can we please get a source for this article? The linked Virgin Media policy page doesn't seem to say anything of the sort -- it's just a minor update to the usage limits already published on the same page last year.
I invite everyone to remember that you're paying for a consumer grade service with a contention ratio of (at least) 20:1 or 50:1. While all ISPs try to give people something that looks like the service they're paying for, they've never been under any obligation to actually deliver it 24/7.
Offcom's investigations into broadband speed have always been to do with actual achievable speed and not usage.
So you might have a 50mbit, or 8mbit service, but unlimited has never been unlimited. Their actual obligation to you is to provide 1/20th or 1/50th the service you signed up for. This has always been the case.
Traffic shaping and AUPs are just an attempt to spread the pain more evenly over their entire network, otherwise some shit down the road from me who's a US tv/every other linux distro/super pirate who tries to max out his connection 24/7 is going to cause me and the other 18+ people on the same line to have some serious issues. Screw him is what I say.
Overall most people get waaaay better than that minimum. Anyone who thinks that for their £20 - £60 / month they ought to be getting an uncontended, unlimited service please go to your doctor and ask for some anti-delusion pills.
depends if your in an congested area
also users who are complaining on here VM has had Traffic Management for the last 4-5 years (about 6 months after VM taken over )
so stop bitching they have now Given you 1mb upload for 10mb and 20mb services (was 256kb and 756kb upload before and an massive 5mb upload on the 50mb DW thats Faster then Most ADSL connections Download speed that i ever see when i service PCs) that will benefit more then 10mb users as the connection was buggered due to the limited upload speed you got when Traffic Management came into play on the upload speed
and on top of that they have 2x the upload cap on the day limit before it was quite low and would only take 20-30 mins to take affect (setting off the upload trigger sets the download limit as well or vis versa)
id say 98% is not legit traffic for the heavy downloaders :) 90% seem not very realistic to me
Advertising standards Authority?
Only they seem to have shown way more teeth than Ofcom on this.
Just use Be broadband... especially if you are on an LLU exchange. 2mbit upstream, practically no download cap (They have a Very Fair Use Policy), no traffic shaping whatsoever. Just a good old fashioned network connection. Use Andrews and Arnold if you want ipv6 and no shaping, but they charge an arm and a leg for download allowance...
"Just use Be broadband... especially if you are on an LLU exchange. 2mbit upstream, practically no download cap (They have a Very Fair Use Policy), no traffic shaping whatsoever. Just a good old fashioned network connection. Use Andrews and Arnold if you want ipv6 and no shaping, but they charge an arm and a leg for download allowance..."
Nor do they seem to want to run a traffic snooping system using Chines hardware like some of their competitors.
Yey! 2MB/s upload on my 20MB/s connection? Sweet! About time too! Better to me working from home sending emails and using Skype video conference and VOIP.
Bandwidth hogging P2P users to be throttled and most likely to leave to another network? There's no bad here. Let them go. Just means lower peer-contention for those that stay. Win, win.
Freetards are not thieves
To AC above.
We stopped calling freetards thieves because they aren't thieves. I recommend you learn some law and in particular, I point you at the Theft Act 1968 which says, in S1(1):-
A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Since copying intellectual property does not normally deprive the other of it, it is not theft.
Rapidshare etc FTW
Since the new restrictions solely apply to uploads (at least for XXL users like me), the use of file sharing sites like Rapidshare will not be affected.
Although download managers like jdownloader are not as pleasant to use as decent bittorrent clients like Transmission (my personal choice) they are a perfectly reasonable alternative.
They never stop me, mwah ha ha...
PS Virgin don't give a crap about illegal filesharing, they just don't want to invest to enable heavy users to get what they pay for. This is nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with load management.
heard it all before
had BT out in Surrey and was throttled back most evenings to the point of not even being able to browse for an "unlimited" connection apparently 300-400GBper month was excessive, to some maybe but I beg to differ.
Throttle USENET also though?? dont virgin provide USENET hosting of Warez? I know that wont account to real network traffic as its "internal", but P2P is a major bw hog.
Now in London and on a 19Mbps service with NO FUP nor throttling of any kind...
and I was very dubious of getting Sky
just the one question remains -if I am on the some recent released list ;)
RIP BBC and Sky Players then
I may not have got the term right, cos' I have never used them and have no intention of using them; but they are effectively dying.
WTF are you talking about?
Why does nobody ever mention....
Ummm, why don't the ISPs cough up, pay for infrastructure and then give everyone QoS over their pipes and make sure that every person has an "even" tube. That way, they can only use bandwidth given to them.
Oh, sorry. That way ISPs still get away with selling connections well above the capacity of their networks whilst still advertising whopping speeds. And then when their infrastructure groans under the weight at peak times, because all of the iphone users out there are using youtube they can conveniently blame it on the filesharers and P2P users and their heinous, subversive and illegal practises. All Traffic Equal in equal tubes. Just saying.
All those of you rabitting on about bandwidth (even the ones of you using the term incorrectly) are missing the point by a country mile. There is more to network performance than bandwidth usage. To stay away from technical terms P2P conversations are very chatty and therefore keep the network hardware busy. A router or switch dealing with a lot of P2P traffic will tend to have a high processor usage. A network dealing with lots of P2P users will suffer performance problems because it's routers and/or switches will be working too hard.
I can give you a parallel if you like. Imagine a premise LAN made up of old switches that don't support spanning tree. Now imaging somebody creates a loop on that network. We've all seen what happens next, in next to no time the LAN is brought to it's knees by a broadcast storm. Everything is maxed out by relaying broadcasts that are coming in through the looped ports. Imagine that upstream of this there is a multilayer switch on the other end of a fibre link to head office. The layer 2 network stops at the port on this switch, beyond there it's layer 3. Somehow, however, everything else connected to this switch starts having problems. This shouldn't happen, those layer 2 broadcasts should stop at that port and go no further. So what's the problem? Check out the switch's CPU utilization. It's huge because the switch is having to look at each of those broadcasts and make a decision on each one. Broadcasts coming in as fast as a 100Mb EES circuit can carry them are using up all the switch's decision making capacity. Until you switch on some sort of broadcast storm control you're stuffed. Limit broadcast storms to, say, 10% and suddenly everything is back to normal.
P2P traffic is a lot like those broadcasts. From a network hardware POV chatty applications are a pain in the arse. This is why ISPs don't like P2P. As home broadband speeds get faster so P2P can put more load on the network hardware. So more and more ISPs who are increasing the speed available to subscribers will start to restrict P2P traffic.
A lot of people think that P2P is really clever coding. Most network engineers will tell you it's shite coding because it is done with no consideration of how networks actually work.
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA