how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2004-11-05 13:26:38: Customers of the Canadian broadband cable company Shaw have been complaining that their Bit Torrent downloads have grown increasingly sluggish. ..
|
 | | I hope they don't do this at my ISP That would really suck! | |
| |  53059959Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | Re: I hope they don't do this at my ISP wow thats really lame. I hope cox never does this. | |
| | |  NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | Re: I hope they don't do this at my ISP That or any ISP.
While Bt does consume a fair amount of bandwidth, cutting users off just aggravates another group of customers. | |
|
| | | where's the best place to get bit torrents | |
| |  Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
3 edits | The whole argument is LAME.
WHERE IN ANY RESIDENTIAL BROADBAND CONTRACT is it STATED UNLIMITED CONSUMPTION??? The only thing unlimited is your TIME connection... vs the days you were billed by the hour. You have the speed available ON DEMAND... so pages don't take 3 minutes or occassional files 3 hours.
NOWHERE in ANY OF THEM says were they guarantee this bandwidth FULL BORE 24/7/365, which is what all to many are bitching about.
You want, that GET A BIZ account where the pricing is in line with that usage!!!! RES pricing NEVER had that in mind. (AND the VAST MAJORITY DON'T use it that way either)
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
| |
| | | | | Re: I hope they don't do this at my ISP said by Hayward:WHERE IN ANY RESIDENTIAL BROADBAND CONTRACT is it STATED UNLIMITED CONSUMPTION??? The only thing unlimited is your TIME connection... vs the days you were billed by the hour. You have the speed available ON DEMAND... so pages don't take 3 minutes or occassional files 3 hours. On the other hand, when it is stated "unlimited", in the absence of any counter-claims or restrictions/clarifications - where does it say that unlimited only applies to time spent online? Doesn't "always on" make that claim primarily redundant, and thus more logical for the customer to be led to believe that therefore the claim of "unlimited", does in fact apply to the overall amount of data transfer?
Also, I've never seen any residential (or even most commercial), that will give you bandwidth (transfer rate relative to unit time) "on-demand". Maximum bandwidth on residential is capped at whatever your speed is.
But bandwidth is not total transfer amount.
said by Hayward:NOWHERE in ANY OF THEM says were they guarantee this bandwidth FULL BORE 24/7/365, which is what all to many are bitching about. Most say "best available", or don't even say. They don't outright guarantee it, however. If everyone tries to use it "full-bore", then the service will slow down due to contention, because of oversell. Oh well.
PS. The "Caps Lock" key is on the left side of the keyboard, just above the left "Shift", but below the "Tab" key, on every standard PC keyboard layout that I've looked at. | |
| | | | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: I hope they don't do this at my ISP Well duhhh
Somplace you saw NOTHING but caps?
Or did you feel a sudden urge towards teaching keyboard 101???
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
| |
|
| | | They do put specific limitations on every type of account. It makes perfect sense that they would, and I can understand why they would be 'throttling' the ports that Bit Torrent commonly runs on.
In a 3 Week period Ive used over 70Gigs of combined bandwidth(46/25Gigs down/up) on my residential account. Half of that was from the first week. After that first week Ive been making a point of not going full bore. Im sure Id be closer to 100Gigs if I had been.
Further more Im not on the Xtreme-I plan. Just normal High speed. According to the below policy there expectation is that I should be using much less then 50Gigs combined in a 30 day period. Woops Im sure Ill be getting a phone call from them
Taken from »»secure.shaw.ca/policy/Use-Policy.asp
8. Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitation
You must comply with the current bandwidth, data storage and other limitations on the Services.
Users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, inhibit or degrade any other customer’s use of the Services, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Shaw) an unusually large burden on the network itself, such as, but not limited to, peer to peer file sharing programs, serving streaming video or audio, mail, http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums. The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for each service package are the following: Shaw High-Speed (with Xtreme-I) - 50 GigaByte; SOHO - 50 GigaByte; Professional - 70 GigaByte; Business - 100 GigaByte (combined download and upload). Business services which are combined with the Xtreme-I upgrade retain the stated Bandwidth Usage/month guidelines. The guidelines for acceptable web site traffic include 2 GigaByte/month for SOHO, Professional, and Business hosting packages. Residential Shaw High Speed and High Speed Lite services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time. In addition, users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, disrupt, inhibit, degrade or impede Shaw’s ability to deliver the Services and monitor the Services, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services.
CUSTOMERS MAY NOT RESELL, SHARE, OR OTHERWISE DISTRIBUTE THE SERVICES OR ANY PORTION THEREOF TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF SHAW. For example, you cannot provide Internet access to others through a dial up connection, host shell accounts over the Internet, provide email or news service, or send a news feed unless express permission is granted by the customer agreement.
The residential Shaw Services are designed for personal Internet use. You may not use the residential Shaw Services for commercial purposes. You may not run a server in connection with the Shaw Services nor may you provide network services to others via the Shaw Services. Examples of prohibited servers and services include, but are not limited to, mail, http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums. Some business services may be exempt from these limitations.
#
9. Violation of Acceptable Use Policy
Shaw does not routinely monitor the activity of accounts for violation of this Policy. However, in our efforts to promote good citizenship within the Internet community, we will respond appropriately if we become aware of inappropriate use of the Services. Although Shaw has no obligation to monitor the Services and/or the network, Shaw reserves the right to monitor bandwidth, usage and content from time to time, to identify violations of this Policy; and/or to protect the network and Shaw users.
Shaw prefers to advise customers of inappropriate behavior and any necessary corrective action. However, if the Services are used in a way which Shaw, in its sole discretion, believes violate this Policy, Shaw may take any responsive actions they deem appropriate. Such actions include, but are not limited to, temporary or permanent removal of content, cancellation of newsgroup posts, filtering of Internet transmissions, and the immediate suspension or termination of all or any portion of the Services. Shaw will not have any liability for any such responsive actions. The above described actions are not Shaw’s exclusive remedies and Shaw may take any other legal or technical action it deems appropriate.
Shaw reserves the right to investigate suspected violations of this Policy, including the gathering of information from the user or users involved and the complaining party, if any, and examination of material on Shaw’s servers and network. During an investigation, Shaw may suspend the account or accounts involved and/or remove material which potentially violates this Policy.
You hereby authorize Shaw to cooperate with (i) law enforcement authorities in the investigation of suspected criminal violations, and/or (ii) system administrators at other Internet service providers or other network or computing facilities in order to enforce this Policy. Such cooperation may include Shaw providing the username, IP address, or other identifying information about a subscriber, in accordance with the guidelines set out in Shaw’s Privacy Policy (»www.shaw.ca/privacypolicy). | |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| Law suit time Like my topic says, it's time for some lawsuits against any isp that is going to try and control what programs you use, and how much of the bandwidth you pay for, they decide to throttle. How can they now say, we offer 3000/256 speed connections for example, if they will be slowing down "some" applications.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death! | |
| |  imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: Law suit time Go ahead and try to sue them, you won't win. They aren't controlling any program, just slowing down an unnecessary burden on their network which causes problems for everyone else. They can do what they want with their network, if you don't like it, leave, it's as simple as that. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Shaw
 ·TELUS
| Re: Law suit time Yup, I left for telus pver a year ago now because Shaw's soft bandwidth caps were impeding my interent use. Now I'm on telus which speed wise is slower (unless you live in Vancouver or some other area that shaw has totally overloaded). Telus does block a few ports to prevent spamming, but it doesn't affect me. I get my 2.5Mbps connection and get to use it for whatever i want.
Shaw goes around and complains that users are are affecting other users. They tell them they are in the top 1 percent of bandwidth users. It's BS because they will suspend and then ban you for using too much bandwidth, so anyone that uses a fair amount of bandwidth gets chased away, so all thats left is a lot of low bandwidth users which brings the average down.
I'd like nothing more then to see SHAW crumble, I've done everything I can to avoid paying them money. I use satellite TV instead of cable, and dsl instead of a cable internet.
Shaw is shady, they've overloaded their system in many areas, and claim fast connections but don't allow people to use them. Do you really need a 5Mbps connection to download mp3's and surf the web?
SHAW SUCKS  | |
| | | |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: Law suit time said by zod5000:...so anyone that uses a fair amount of bandwidth gets chased away, so all that's left is a lot of low bandwidth users which brings the average down. I see...like using ALL the bandwidth is fair. Maybe in YOUR world. You, apparently, don't even know what the word 'fair' means. I d/l 200MB files, but I don't do it day in and day out. I at least give other people a chance...
I'd like nothing more then to see SHAW crumble, I've done everything I can to avoid paying them money. I am sure that they all sit around the conference table pulling their hair out because you took your 'bandwidth hogging' ways elsewhere. They probably added 50 new paying customers who act in a reasonable way to use the bandwidth that you used.
POOR Shaw..!
--
A is A | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Shaw
·TELUS
| Re: Law suit time OK so if SHAW is in such financial turmoil, why is it that telus doesn't need to enforce caps? You seem to think Shaw is all high and mighty and if you use bandwidth you're harming other users. Did it ever occur to you that this is all just a tactic to increase profits at shaw?
You didn't understand my argument at all. My argument was that more and more internet users are using higher amounts of bandwidth. When shaw calls you up and says you've used to much and threatens to suspend you or boot you for excessive use, they basically chase you to another ISP.
So then they call up the next guy and go hey, you are in the top 1 percent of bandwidth users. He's in the top 1 percent because they don't allow more bandwidth to be used. They kick you off or chase you away.
So they artificially create these low average bandwidth numbers. Just because you don't use alot of bandwidth doesn't mean other people do.
So basically SHAW makes a killing by going after people like yourself that use low amounts of bandwidth. If they chase all the highend users away they can be replaced with alot more lowerend users. Instead of upgrading their system to deal with bandwidth, they chase away people who use it. Then they overcrowd their system with lowerend users.
This is the division we have in BC. We have telus that caters to the higherend users and Shaw that caters to the lowerend users. So why don't telus users have problems? Why isn't telus going bankrupt?
Shaw is poor service! I can't believe you stand up for those bastards. They could upgrade their systems and stop overcrowding them, but blind ass people like you fall for their crap.
It should be noted I would be content if in Shaw's advertising they had the balls to tell you how much you could download in a month. When I used to be on shaw they'd tell me something different all the time. If they're only going to allow you to download 30gb's a month, it should be in the advertising. I think people have right to know before they signup. The AUP is vague and doesn't list specific numbers for residential customers. They used to compare it to the bottom business package of 6 down/1 up. This is the 21st century.
We first got cable modems here around 1998. Back then there were no caps and it was faster. So for the last 6 years the service got worse while files got bigger. I just don't like the fact that shaw tries to brainwash people into thinking that using your connection is a bad thing. | |
| | | | | |  lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | Re: Law suit time Hmm, good idea, but one problem: What happens when you have a user [like me] who uses services that fall under all the tiers? I have two VOIP lines, I do some gaming, use a lot of "normal" traffic, and occasional P2P downloading (when I need something). Would I be forced to choose one group and deal with either traffic restrictions or inability to connect due to other traffic? Would I get billed per application I use?
In theory, it's a great idea, and probably the most intelligent one in this thread. But in reality, I think it would be far too difficult to implement. | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Shaw
·TELUS
| Re: Law suit time i don't think tier packages would work for shaw, as they already have shaw-lite, normal, xtreme and then all the business packages.
problem is shaw is trying to cram as many people onto their nodes as possible. placeslike vancouver are really getting the short end of the stick. I don't think charging more for more bandwidth is gonna solve the problem. They gotta take some of the money they're makin and do some upgrades. | |
| | | | | | | | | said by lupinia:Hmm, good idea, but one problem: What happens when you have a user [like me] who uses services that fall under all the tiers? I have two VOIP lines, I do some gaming, use a lot of "normal" traffic, and occasional P2P downloading (when I need something). Would I be forced to choose one group and deal with either traffic restrictions or inability to connect due to other traffic? Would I get billed per application I use? No, I didn't mean that the customer had to choose between those tiers of service, only that the ISP would impose caps, and that those caps (max bandwidth and max transfer per billing period, possibly) would apply on per-tier basis.
So you pay your monthly fee, and you get X online-gaming/VoIP service time, Y web/IRC/e-mail bandwidth, Z FTP/BT downloads, and potentially access to whatever "scrap bandwidth" is available that month, for no additional charge.
There might be overage fees on a per-tier basis too, with higher tiers costing slightly more than lower ones.
said by lupinia:In theory, it's a great idea, and probably the most intelligent one in this thread. But in reality, I think it would be far too difficult to implement. Well, it's going to have to happen sooner or later. Part of the problem is too, those "big routers" with that level of features, probably will cost the ISP half a million dollors or something insane like that, which makes the ISP more willing to simply kick off a few of their higher-bandwidth users, rather than spend the necessary amount to modernize their infrastructure.
PS. Thanks for the compliment. | |
| | | | | | | | lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA | Re: Law suit time Ahh, that clarifies it quite a bit, and it sounds like an even better idea, but I still doubt any ISP would seriously implement it. Still a great idea, though, if only ISPs thought like their customers  | |
|
| |  javaManThe Dude abides.Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | said by imrf:. . .if you don't like it, leave, it's as simple as that. If it were only that simple. What will happen it that, as the article states, other ISP's will begin doing the same thing. In the end there will be no place to move. There are merits to the case and someone should try to put a stop to it before is spreads to become the norm.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20 | |
| | | | Eek2121Lovin Verizon FIOS
join:2002-10-12
Newton, NJ Reviews:
·Service Electric..
| Re: Law suit time said by javaMan: said by imrf:. . .if you don't like it, leave, it's as simple as that. If it were only that simple. What will happen it that, as the article states, other ISP's will begin doing the same thing. In the end there will be no place to move. There are merits to the case and someone should try to put a stop to it before is spreads to become the norm. bzzzt! wrong answer. More ISPs will pop up, offering 'true unmetered connections' as an incentive to switch. For instance, I'm currently part of a WISP startup, which will provide true unmetered service (that is, we don't monitor, nor care about your connection). We are also planning limited fibre rollouts and other broadband technology. We are 'for the user'. We always will be. | |
| | | | | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: Law suit time said by Eek2121:bzzzt! wrong answer. More ISPs will pop up, offering 'true unmetered connections' as an incentive to switch. For instance, I'm currently part of a WISP startup, which will provide true unmetered service (that is, we don't monitor, nor care about your connection). We are also planning limited fibre rollouts and other broadband technology. We are 'for the user'. We always will be. HAHAHA!
The first p2p d/l'er that saturates your bandwidth is going to be blocked, or shaped, at least.
Your unbounded enthusiasm and high-minded ideals are admirable...it will be a shame to see them destroyed.
That day will be when the calls keep coming into the office about how shitty the service YOU provide is...oh, and your upstream provider hits you with a nasty bill for your overages.
--
A is A | |
| | | | | | | ...until you guys realize that you have a limited amount of bandwidth available on your wireless network and that a VERY small amount of users using P2P crap paying you $30 per month are chewing up a $3,500 per month T3 - making your service unusable for anyone but file sharers because of the latency. Trust me, I own a WISP. I'd MUCH rather pitch 5 $30 per month accounts of the guys that P2P 24/7 and let the hundreds of others remain happy than lose business because some of you are too damn cheap to buy what you use. Sure, P2P has its legitimate uses, but i've never seen anyone in a life or death situation because they couldn't download Shrek2 or something in a few hours...BUT...the police departments, hospitals, fire departments, ambulance companies and such that rely on my network will suffer...
While i would NEVER deny service by blocking ports or disabling applications, It makes sound financial and business sense to have the "top 1%" of bandwidth users suffer by throttling a few P2P applications back than to lose my ass in thousands of dollars of lost revenue when subscribers start ditching me due to network issues caused by the nonstop barrage of junk. Upgrade my crappy network you say? Give you more speed? I don't think so. I have top of the line everything, with a Tier1 fiber provider for my backhaul. Tons of money invested on a product that works like a charm when we are able to control the abuse. How much money do I have to spend to make the P2P community happy? Infrastructure costs money, so does bandwidth. A dedicated 65Mb circuit costs around $10,000 per month. Twenty p2p users at 3mb saturates this link, and they pay a whopping total of $600 combined per month for that privelage.
Are you getting the idea yet? | |
|
| | | | said by imrf:Go ahead and try to sue them, you won't win. They aren't controlling any program, just slowing down an unnecessary burden on their network which causes problems for everyone else. They can do what they want with their network, if you don't like it, leave, it's as simple as that. Amen -- anyone whining and complaining about BitTorrents being slow, I would wager, is most likely using BitTorrent for something not "technically" legal. Trading music, movies, etc. outside the bounds of copyright law and the DMCA.
I don't like the DMCA for some of the stupid crap it results in, but the powers that be wouldn't have put it into play if illegal file trading associated with things like Kazaa and BitTorrent hadn't gotten out of hand.
Keep in mind -- I think BitTorrent is a great idea for getting large game patches and other legit files in a unique manner. But if, overall, it's (a) taking up 35% of Internet bandwidth nationwide (or worldwide -- can't remember what the #'s were for in the other article) and (b) being used primarily for illegal file trading, KUDOS to the ISPs that crack down on this crap.
And HAHAHAHAHAHAHA to anyone who can't steal the latest album, movie or game because of the throttling. :P
IronChefMorimoto
--
Desktop #1: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 1GB PC3200 DDR | 256MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Desktop #2: Shuttle SK41G | Athlon XP 1800+ | 512MB PC2100 DDR | Onboard Graphics
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | |
| | | | | | Re: Law suit time said by IronChefMoto: Amen -- anyone whining and complaining about BitTorrents being slow, I would wager, is most likely using BitTorrent for something not "technically" legal. Trading music, movies, etc. outside the bounds of copyright law and the DMCA. Personally as a informed file trader I feel that the very opposite is often the case. I know for a fact about the litigation that results from being an uploader and would never share anything other than legal files, the risks are just way too high (well that and the fact that there isn't much legal stuff i would care to have in the first place other than bands i really support and am willing to pay to hear their albums the good old fashioned way by driving to my local record store and buying)
The thing is, that most of these bands I do support allow trading of live recordings of their concerts in almost all cases (usually not of a concert that they record themselves for a live CD release)
I can go to Etree's BT site and download lossless compressed versions of numerous concerts of bands i support all day long and not violate any copyright restrictions whatsoever and use huge amounts of bandwidth (lossless compression like shn or flac of shows tend to average a gig or more)
Throttling BT traffic would be a pain for me, I could certainly work around it (plenty of good legal FTP's out there for these same shows), but luckily I don't face this problem yet. Sure hope i never have to either | |
| | | | |  HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | Re: Law suit time said by martissimo: Personally as a informed file trader... ...most of these bands I do support allow trading of live recordings of their concerts in almost all cases. I can go to Etree's BT site and download lossless compressed versions of numerous concerts of bands i support all day long and not violate any copyright restrictions whatsoever... I'm willing to bet that you and others like you who download legal stuff are in the minority of BT traffic. Just because something can be used for "good" doesn't mean others won't abuse it for "bad".
--
Get over it... | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Law suit time You are absolutely correct Hall, there is little doubt that most is not legal. The problem is that throttling illegal use would still affect my legal use if my ISP chose to go this route.
It seems to me that the RIAA and MPAA can take care of themselves through litigation, sooner or later it is bound to cause a slowing of illegal traffic as people actually know friends who have been affected instead of just reading antecdotal stories about it. That day is going to come (in my opinion),
I realize that ISP's hate the so called bandwidth hogs, they make their job tougher, but we also need to realize that demand for bandwidth as more legitimate bandwidth intensive applications are constantly being deployed is only going to rise. The peoples need for bandwidth is only going to increase in the future. At some point the providers will have to provide it or be replaced by those who will.
A lot at work here, and I certainly don't have the answers, but this particular answer doesn't strike me as being the best one | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Law suit time Yeh if you are beta testing World of Warcraft for example, they push their client patches which can be nearly 2.5 GB using bittorrent technology... I use bittorrent regularly to download FPS mods for Battelfield 1942. All these uses are very legitimate, why should they be chocked becuase a few bad apples are doing illegal things? | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Law suit time A few?
I don't support the ISP's blocking things without telling customers, but I am not so naive to believe that there are only a "few" bad apples using BitTorrent.
It's more like a few legitimate users are using it, and have a point. The majority of bandwidth used by BitTorrents is not legitimate.
Unless you want to believe in the good of mankind, and that the 35% of Internet traffic contributed to BitTorrent is multiplayer maps, game patches, and music from artists that distribute music freely. | |
|
|  CorvusFlaming Tards Since 2003Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26 | said by gatorkram:Like my topic says, it's time for some lawsuits against any isp that is going to try and control what programs you use, and how much of the bandwidth you pay for, they decide to throttle. How can they now say, we offer 3000/256 speed connections for example, if they will be slowing down "some" applications. Forget that, every Canadian ISP prohibit use of "servers" in their contract. Keep in mind that some ISP block porst 21, 25 and 80 wich is much more restrictive than throttling.
--
Jesus saves, but only Buddha makes incremental backups. | |
| | | | |  Re: Law suit time
| |
| | | | CorvusFlaming Tards Since 2003Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26 | Re: Law suit time said by ReneHollan:
Golden Triangle had no restrictions on running servers, when I lived in Whitby, ON almost a year ago. They offered cheap bundled long distance too.
It's all about business, if they start or plan to start loosing money all of this because network issues due to BT, they will take actions...
--
Jesus saves, but only Buddha makes incremental backups. | |
|
| | | | you're right, almost all ISPs 'ban' servers on their networks, but i liken that to NYC's 'ban' on jaywalking. it's technically against the law and can be subject to fines, but i have only seen 3 or 4 tickets being written for such as long as i've lived here. 'servers' are a murky issue to begin with. does that mean i'm not allowed to send family photos (on average 2 or 3 megs per pic) to my sister through AIM, or similarly barred from leaving a VNC connection open on my computer so that i can access its files from a computer on my campus?
--
Hardware_411: what are you talking about...i dont want deal with newegg.com no more just watch they are going to be garbage in a few months.
Dave's Stupendous Genius | |
| | | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | said by Corvus: Keep in mind that some ISP block porst 21, 25 and 80 which is much more restrictive than throttling. WOW...who blocks port 80?
--
A is A | |
| | | |  LiontaurLets Get Boincing AlreadyPremium,MVM,ExMod 2004-06
join:2001-11-03
Salmon Arm, BC | Re: Law suit time I think that he's referring to blocking incoming ports so that the ISP's customers can't run servers on those particular ports. One ISP that does this is Telus but I know there's more that do as well.
--
Join BroadbandReports.com's SETI@Home Team
Don't let your computer's idle time go to waste! | |
| | | | | | | Re: Law suit time But then again, Telus provides server friendly accounts for those that want them. I pay $80 a month and can run any server I wish. | |
| | | | | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Ah...!
I know that...early in the morning.
--
A is A | |
|
| | | HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | said by John Galt: said by Corvus: Keep in mind that some ISP block porst 21, 25 and 80 which is much more restrictive than throttling. WOW...who blocks port 80? Inbound port 80. Keeps people from running webservers. If they blocked outbound port 80, well, that would make web surfing a bit difficult.
--
Get over it... | |
| | | | | | said by John Galt: said by Corvus: Keep in mind that some ISP block porst 21, 25 and 80 which is much more restrictive than throttling. WOW...who blocks port 80? Inbound? Verizon DSL does, at least.
Outbound? Any provider that implements a forced transparent HTTP proxy does. I suspect that there are quite a few.
Probably many more than will tell you that they are, since it's not an outright "block" per-se, but rather a clever mis-direction. In the end though, they still don't actually allow the routing of TCP/IP packets between your machine and the internet on port 80, because they get hijacked along the way by their proxy. I'm sure that LE is sniffing along too. | |
|
| HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:1 | said by gatorkram:Like my topic says, it's time for some lawsuits against any isp that is going to try and control what programs you use... Don't it suck when you don't read your ISP's Terms of Service (or Acceptable Use policy) ?? You might want to take a look at yours... I'll bet it says something along the lines of:
Network disruptions and unfriendly activity. Using the Services for any activity which adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use the ISP's services or the Internet.
And remember, *they* decide what is unfriendly, not you.
Hard to sue them under those conditions...
--
Get over it... | |
| |  BichonPremium,MVM
join:2002-10-10
Freehold, NJ | The ISP has the right to define their service as they see fit. And you have the right to either buy it, or to look for another provider that better meets your needs. | |
| | |
See 27 replies to this post | |
| | | I still call bullsh*t on anyone who argues that it's NOT RIGHT for an ISP to throttle certain types of bandwidth that it designates as detrimental to its infrastructure and/or makes it liable due to content/copyright issues.
I agree 100% with some of the posters in this discussion that make 100% correct arguments about THEIR network infrastructure (and NOT the users' needs/wants/desires) being at issue here. If I invest $XXX thousand in my ISP equipment/infrastructure/staff/etc., and I to bend over backward to accommodate 1% of my users that are sucking up 33% of my available resources? NO. Abso-f*cking-lutely NOT.
You can talk to me all day about Cisco QoS options (kudos to those getting certified in all that), but when it comes down to it, unless you're willing to plunk down another $XXX thousand to build onto your infrastructure to avoid having to throttle things like BT, then you gotta do what you gotta do. And if that means spending $XX thousand (notice this might be less) to figure out better ways to segregate customers into different tiers of bandwidth and services, then that, while a long-term solution, is better than going bankrupt trying to make BT users happy.
IronChefMorimoto
--
Desktop #1: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 1GB PC3200 DDR | 256MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Desktop #2: Shuttle SK41G | Athlon XP 1800+ | 512MB PC2100 DDR | Onboard Graphics
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | |
|
 RhobitePremium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA |  I love it
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | Main reason why cable sucks. No matter how fast reliable and good cable is this type of thing just sucks. You hardly ever hear this with DSL, except maybe a port 25 block here and there to try and curb spam.
The big brother award of the year goes to cable. Yes this is canada but they all follow each other like sheep. | |
| |
See 11 replies to this post | |
| | Rally Up! People are using the P2P protocols for more than just BT, this new censorship affects programs like Skype, Shoutcast and more. Totally legal programs and totally legal usage, I pay for the 50 gig a month, now why can't I use it?
I have talked with the creator of RODI and he says that they are close to a solution, but there is no guarantee that Ellacoya won't just release a new firmware for BT2 and RODI. The only thing he recommends is "meanwhile you can try PROXI servers like anonymizer.com. google "proxy servers list". sorry. - Arkday
So all we can do is make a huge deal out of it, tell your friends and co-workers, tell the tech's you deal with on the phone. They are trying to hide this from even their own staff, make sure everyone knows. Meanwhile, I'm putting together a story for the local paper.
Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other Limitation
You must comply with the current bandwidth, data storage and other limitations on the Services.
Users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, inhibit or degrade any other customer’s use of the Services, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Shaw) an unusually large burden on the network itself, such as, but not limited to, peer to peer file sharing programs, serving streaming video or audio, mail, http, ftp, irc, dhcp servers, and multi-user interactive forums. The guidelines for Bandwidth Usage/month for each service package are the following: Shaw High-Speed (with Xtreme-I) - 50 GigaByte; SOHO - 50 GigaByte; Professional - 70 GigaByte; Business - 100 GigaByte (combined download and upload). Business services which are combined with the Xtreme-I upgrade retain the stated Bandwidth Usage/month guidelines. The guidelines for acceptable web site traffic include 2 GigaByte/month for SOHO, Professional, and Business hosting packages. Residential Shaw High Speed and High Speed Lite services do not have specific guidelines of this nature as the Service is not intended for business applications. Shaw reserves the right to set specific limits for Bandwidth Usage and charge for excessive Bandwidth Usage for residential Services at any time. In addition, users must ensure that their activity does not improperly restrict, disrupt, inhibit, degrade or impede Shaw’s ability to deliver the Services and monitor the Services, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services. | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
 MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | common, use proper terms :) quote:
The decision to focus on limiting Bit Torrent traffic specifically is a big deal however, since, as we noted yesterday, 35% of all web traffic is now Bit Torrent.
i know what you mean, but common,
INTERNET != WEB(www/http)
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: Signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
| | | | Re: common, use proper terms :) Internet is only a part of the web. Other parts of the Web are FTP, email, instant messaging, and there are others. Some parts use others as well. But no Internet does not make up the entire world wide web. | |
| | | MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY | Re: common, use proper terms :) unless you are joking, you got it backwards:D | |
| | | |  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: common, use proper terms :) S/he ain't joking; s/he confused and hasn't figgered it yet. | |
|
 MinvarenPremium
join:2001-07-26
Houston, TX | Question... As Steam uses Bit Torrent-like technology for its distribution, is Shaw going to hear tons of screams during the Half-Life 2 release in 10 (or so) days?
I can imagine that people who buy a package online will be upset with a few gigs of data downloading at dial-up speeds. | |
| | | | Re: Question... Yes they will because as some peope above think that regardless of the fact that you PAY for using part of their network you have no right to use it at all and have no say whatsoever in what happens to the part you pay for. I bet Shaw kills that as well if they complain anbout bandwidth usage. HL2 is a few gigs x thousands if not millions and the BW ramps up quickly. | |
| |  Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Let me quash a little rumor that continues to keep popping up: Steam does not currently use Bit Torrent-like technology (IE: downloading directly from peers). Nor will it likely be used as the primary method of distribution ever because people would scream bloody murder at valve stealing their bandwidth.
The only two connections to Valve that have anything to do with BT are that they used BT to distribute video of in-game footage, and that they hired Bram Cohen (for whom Bit-torrent is only 1 little item in his resume that includes several entries referencing cryptology; which I suspect is the primary reason he works for them; BT and the like are only icing on the cake).
--
Attention all decks! Brace for whining! | |
|
| | BS numbers I think I will become an expert...BitTorrent now uses up 40% of the Internet. Illegal usage is at an all time low of 1%. I mean cmon how you anyone realistically say that all of Bittorrent is illegal? There is not once good scientific measurment that can come anywhere close to the real number. The ISP's funded any such report along with the RIAA and MPAA to provide some bullshit numbers to screw people out of even more money. | |
|  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | change providers The best way is just to order a DSL line, when they call to make you signup again, explain there lack of CS in regards to this.
--
Hooray the election is over, can we talk about broadband now ? | |
| TELUS
join:2004-02-16
TELUS | Lies. It's bad enough that Shaw has to use this.....
But it's worse when they blame this on [Or openly lie and point the finger at] Microsoft [Windows XP SP2].....
Yes, they blame this on SP2.
As suspected and even compounded by an 'Insider', this is only going to get worse as Shaw's customer base starts to investigate or notice service levels/quality degrading.
For all of those who haven't used Shaw, I'll outline a few things which myself and other users have experienced.....
-They lie about competitors
-They say one gigabyte per day of bandwidth transfer is MORE than enough
-They lie about service levels
-They make promises that they can't keep
Shaw hasn't been this way before, granted.
They used to offer a solid connection of 650KBPS around five years ago.....Then every year it seems to drop.....550/450/300KBPS or so.
Of course, this is still dependant on area, but probably the largest concentration of Shaw's customer base [GVRD] is getting screwed. | |
| | |  Pick the lesser of two evils...
You can choose to move to America and get Comcast or SBC Yahoo! DSL. Oh...wait. I seriously doubt there are that many Canadians who want to move into the US after Tuesday, what with Bush winning the election.
Hmmm...looks like you'll have to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
IronChefMorimoto
[HINT - At least with Shaw, the Christian right won't be banging on your door to tell you you're going to hell for stealing music, movies, etc. on your connection.]
--
Desktop #1: Abit NF7-S 2.0 | AMD AthlonXP 2500+ | 1GB PC3200 DDR | 256MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Desktop #2: Shuttle SK41G | Athlon XP 1800+ | 512MB PC2100 DDR | Onboard Graphics
Laptop: Dell Latitude C810 | Intel PIII-M | 512MB PC133 SDRAM | |
| | TELUS
join:2004-02-16
TELUS | Re: Pick the lesser of two evils... There's more to an ISP than raw speed.
More important than ever? Perhaps.
In the GVRD [Regional District], there are two major service providers.
Shaw. Cable.
Telus. Telephony.
If you cannot get service with one major carrier, you'll probably default to the other carrier.
There is no Comcast/SBC/RoadRunner/OptimumOnline/Cox/Adelphia/Charter.....
I know I'm generalizing, but kids want their media, and they choose Shaw.
In fact, Shaw targetted this commercials with youth saying, "I can download faster.....etcetra....."
Of course, Cable did premier first [Rogers/Shaw - @Home/Wave]
Shaw has an advantage over Telus, and that is speed [Throughput].....Oh wait.....
That could also read, "Shaw had an advantage over Telus" | |
| | | | If it bugs ya, make a stand and switch to DSL! At least you'll be happy (for now) Tell Shaw to kiss your big fat booty and to get a new company name!
--
Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots!
 | |
|
| | Use Speakeasy I use Speakeasy here in Seattle and they market their services as "do whatever the hell you want". I'm paying $99 a month for 6Mbit/768Kbit and get the full benefit of all that speed. They allow you to run a server and use your full bandwidth without screaming at you.
That's a real ISP. | |
| | japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Use Speakeasy SpeakEasy is a super provider. But, unfortunately, expensive and only entering wealthy, proven demand markets. They refuse to co-locate in not-yet-developed markets - meaning they cherry-pick rather than help create markets.
When I try to convince Speakeasy to come to my town their polished reply is "Gee, we'd love to but you are on a remote terminal and we can't co-locate there" and expect me to swallow that the 2-story, 40x40 brick building 700 ft from my home that contains 600 sqft of unused, dedicated co-location wall space is a remote terminal. SpeakEasy cannot bring themselves to say "Sorry, our marketing analysis indicates your town is not yet ripe. Call us again next year".
They've dropped a notch in my estimation due to their insistent use of canned idiot responses to service areas. | |
|
| | a growing trend? I can see this becoming a growing trend with all ISPs.
It sucks, but from their perspecitive I can see why it's necessary. | |
| | TELUS
join:2004-02-16
TELUS | Re: a growing trend? So, whoever is last will win?
I'd hate to compare apples to oranges [ORANGES ROCK!], but there is South Korea/Japan/Hong Kong with bandwidth.
Port blocking effects spam, and that affects everyone.
Traffic throttling effects data transfer, and that affects your service provider. | |
| | Reviews:
·Shaw
·TELUS
| it would seem from what I read, cable ISP's seem to be softcapping and all this other crap, more often then DSL providers are doing it. Is this a sign that DSL is a better system, or maybe DSL is cheaper to setup/upgrade/run. DSL is a little slower then cable in most areas, but it makes up for it in the overall bandwidth you can use.
Maybe Cable Internet will just become obscelete, or maybe it'll just get better if something better comes around to threaten it. | |
| | | | | Re: a growing trend? said by zod5000:it would seem from what I read, cable ISP's seem to be softcapping and all this other crap, more often then DSL providers are doing it. Is this a sign that DSL is a better system, or maybe DSL is cheaper to setup/upgrade/run. DSL is a little slower then cable in most areas, but it makes up for it in the overall bandwidth you can use. I would say that from a network-infrastructure administration and upgrade POV, DSL is superior.
Cable has a lot of inherent limitations based on the original design of their cable plant, which is based on the idea of local neighborhood distribution "nodes". That worked out well, and was more economical for one-way signal distribution like video, but it definately creates a bottleneck "in the field" for the users of that node when capacity reaches the limits of utilization. I'm not a cable guru, but I'm assuming that they would have to physically install another node or something, and then split the load between them.
DSL, on the other hand, is a straight shot between customer and the line-card at the CO or RT. There's plenty of headroom left in that link, assuming that the line can physically handle it, based on distance. Some can go to 8-9Mbit/s, or higher with newer technology. Sure, at the CO end, the bandwidth between all of the users is shared, so both DSL and cable are shared at some point. But with DSL you could just upgrade the upstream "trunk" line and replace the router(s), all in one location, instead of a bunch of neighborhood nodes. | |
|
 ManatriteShattered Reflection
join:2003-03-02
Canada
·Shaw
| shaw may have freed bandwidth but.... I think now it is a good time to find another ISP provider for those that use Bittorrent very often.
Seeing that they ended up freeing some upload bandwidth with the new traffic shaping hardware, I'm guessing Shaw will continue to add more new users to the same node. Eventually the speed problems will come back again when new peer 2 peer applications becomes more popular then Bittorrent. It's just like someone is trying to fix their computer before considering buying a new one but in the end, they really do need a new one because their old one is beyond repairable. That being said, eventually, Shaw would be forced to upgrade the network capacity, sooner or later. | |
| | | | Re: shaw may have freed bandwidth but.... For all those debating the merits of cable vs DSL, you might find the following article of interest.
»www.bizreport.com/news/8604/
It seems that by 2010 Cable will only account for 15% of Europe's broadband connections, a massive drop from the present level. As a Shaw user in Canada,I read this with great interest, after also reading the article pertaining to Shaw Cable's use of port blocking or bandwidth restricting with regards to Bit torrent user's
How the high and mighty can fall, and just like the Roman empire, nothing lasts for ever. | |
|
| | Piss off it's not Censorship... Stupid american moron,
Think of the internet as a world that doesn't revovle around your country and it's politics. Now imagine if you could only see into that world through the eyes of an ISP. The ISP has now decided that too many people are using it for P2P filesharing, legal content or not. They then "censor" the use of those protocols for everyone, thus "censoring" the content. Moron,
Wordnet
ban, censor -- (forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper)) | |
| | | | Re: Piss off it's not Censorship... Hahaha. Censoring would be if they blocked you from it totally. They haven't. They are just limiting the amount of bandwidth you can use on your illegal software. That is not censorship. Moron. | |
| | TELUS
join:2004-02-16
TELUS | Illegal software?
"vi" is illegal software because it allows people to write death threats. | |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Pay by GB throughput..... I can't believe nobody here has yet spoken of measured service!
What pisses me off is the ISPs are avoiding the PR pain of making the obviously-gonna-happen-anyway move to measured service. There is no way to avoid the fact that data throughput usage costs money and people consume wildly different quantities of it.
This silly assed finger pointing at software tools, traffic shaping on the sly, judgements of who's doing what, yada yada. It's astoundingly bad management that providers are not implementing fixed-capped accounts with real-cost (which is cheap off-peak) overage charges.
It's a frikken limited resource network like any other and congestion problems are regionally limited to business and evening hours. We need pricing that pushes heavy users into the low-load periods. And we need the user base (that's us!!) to pressure our providers to do it now or we'll suffer untold months of this shaping, invisible caps on selected accounts, bait&switch marketing, and all the other bad relations crap people here are complaining about. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 wintr
join:2004-10-13
Calgary, AB | I feel a need to defend After reading the entirety of this thread, I'm not sure what to say, but I need to say something.
I've been on with Shaw for about four years now, not using the i-xtreem. I've never had an issue with the network, the cable tech that showed up at my house and the few I had the pleasure of talking with on the phone have been courteous, informed, and helpful.
I don't use bit torrent. I've been a emule user for a while and never had any trouble. I've been running multiple servers off my connection for a while. I've never been contacted about my throughput.
OK, so I don't download gobs of stuff and don't host a lot. Sometimes my firewall logs look like WWII. But for the amount of money that I'm paying them I have received one of the most reliable and fast connections that I could hope for in my area.
It does come down to end user experience. Mine has been great. Had I been a BT user this would most likely irk me, but does one protocol kill the rest of my experience. No. I left Kazaa because it was crap, left win Mx because it didn't have a community. If BT is running slow, use something else. We do have other options. If BT is the thing, I'll first ask 'What are your really downloading that is so mission critical that you can bitch about it?' and then I'll say 'right. now leave, your bugging me kid'
They have every right to shape their network they way they want to. Don't like it, leave. But stop the whining about what they can do. If you don't want them to do it to you, figure out a work around (BT is cool, but it not a total paradigm shift) or leave. I left telus because I couldn't deal with them calling me to tell me the eighty dollars a month I was spending was properly suited to my habits. I left fido because the network coverage was too small. I stopped eating at McDicks because it made me fat.
Don't slag them because they have a business model that you don't agree with. Vote with your bucks, and free up more bandwidth for me.
Mind you, they might roll this out in the prairies and we'll discover that it hurts e-mule as well. But at that point, I'll find a work around or leave. But I won't threaten law suits when they are doing due diligence for their share holders.
--
546f6f206d616e792073656372657473»augmentedreality.ca | |
| | TELUS
join:2004-02-16
TELUS | Re: I feel a need to defend Quote from WRX888:
"Just to add more fuel to the fire. It's not just BT that's being throttled. I've been trying my eMule the past couple days and my uploads are between 0.0-2.4kB/s when they're normally 24-28kB/s. Guess I'll be calling Telus today. Anyone want to buy a slightly used Motorola SB5100? Anyone else that is having BT problems having similar problems with eMule/eDonkey?"
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
It affects eMule, but not Alberta.
Do you know the amount of customers of Shaw's internet service in Calgary and Edmonton? | |
| | | wintr
join:2004-10-13
Calgary, AB | Re: I feel a need to defend Last first. Nah, couldn't tell you. But if their reading this speak up guys.
And as for the first, that's life, we wont shoot the messenger. But like I said, if and when it hits me, I'll find a work around or move on. But I still can't knock them for what their doing.
--
546f6f206d616e792073656372657473»augmentedreality.ca | |
|
IGGYNo Guru Just Here To HelpPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-30
Chatham, IL
1 edit | It's not just Shaw As I mentioned in my blog post on this. Cogeco customers are also reporting seeing a similar issue. Their forum here has a few threads on this. Previous somewhat related story »ISP's Blocking P2P Use? | |
| |  SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | Re: It's not just Shaw said by IGGY:As I mentioned in my blog post on this. Cogeco customers are also reporting seeing a similar issue. Their forum here has a few threads on this. Previous somewhat related story » ISP's Blocking P2P Use? It's still being debated, and even if it does exist, it's only in one specific area (Hamilton) and only on outbound traffic. I'm in Niagara Falls, and I've got 550KB/s worth of combined traffic coming in and 35KB/s of combined traffic going out of BT right now.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca | |
|
| | WoW JUST FYI worldofwarcraft client useing BT for patch and client download. I would hate to see this "Filter" catch on when more and more real uses are found for BT. | |
| | | From an ISP
I am the network Administrator for a large ISP in Alberta. I run day to day operations including the administration of network traffic.
In reading the posts in this discussion, I'm blown away by the lack of common sense of some of the writer's of these posts. For those who don't know, every customer buys their internet connection from the ISP, and the ISP has to buy their internet feed from somewhere. While it would be nice to have an unlimited, open connection, with unlimited throughput, and unlimited monthly traffic... That is not possible.
When you think about how the Internet works, it's somewhat of miracle how well it works. There isn't really any one company that runs the internet. There are no internet police (for the most part). The internet is one giant network, that involves every country on this planet, and millions of people's hard work (burying fiber and creating websites). With that Said, we have to work together to keep it working properly, and efficiently. If everyone who had a computer suddenly started trading movies online, then every ISP would have to either expand their Infrastructure (widen their roads), or prioritize the traffic flows. Today's ISPs have amazing infrastructures in place and network professionals should be thanked as a whole for their growing expertise in the internet. However, the Infrastructure can't grow as fast as the growing usage of the internet, and thus, the growing usage of File-sharing programs like Bit-Torrent. Obviously, the #1 use for file-sharing programs is illegal use. The growing popularity of MP3's, DivX, illegal software, and other high-demand downloads has put a large strain on ISP backbones. While most of the uses are illegal, there are obviously also legal uses. But most legal uses are not nearly as bandwidth-consuming as the illegal ones. With that said any company in the right mind would not use a program like bit-torrent for their legitimate use.
Maybe that will convince you to delete your copy of Bit-torrent and sign-up for I-tunes, and go out and purchase all the software you need, rather than download it. (Wouldn't that be the day? I'm not even going to do that)
There is no point in blaming the ISP's because as someone said in a previous post, they're not in the business to put a smile on your face. They're in the business of being in business. Luckily, most of the time that means making the consumer happy. However no company is going to allow something to happen that is eventually going to put them out of business.
Think of it like this:
This situation is a lot like the government not allowing semi-trucks to be in a lot of residential neighbourhoods. There just isn't the room for big trucks to be taking shortcuts through people's front yards. They need to stick to the highways where they have to be weighed before entering/leaving a city. If they are overweight, they are penalized. | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post |
| |
|
