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. ..
|
 | | It's a protocol We lost ALL the P2P stuff...... not just BT, everything. They seem to have "Turned it down", but what will stop them from "turning down" other protocols when the server load get's too high? I plan to fall back to my FTP ways and do my trading with friends, but they have no new network to support us all, and with the VOIP additions they will look stupid. Let's try and make that stupidity shine through people...... | |
| | | The only thing I'm surprised about is that it took this long for ISPs to begin doing this. The universities set the precedent by banning servers and throttling P2P apps. Now the ISPs are starting to do the same. We're going down a bad road here and soon enough it will turn out that in order to have the internet the way it was meant to be (no server bans, traffic shaping, or bandwidth/data transfer limits) will be to get a T1 or T3.
It's really time to put an end to this continued eroding away of consumer rights. Unfortunately it's only going to get worse and worse as time goes on; I really see no hope for change on the horizon. If you like quality broadband, it's time to look into a move to Korea or Japan. | |
| |  John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: The only thing I'm surprised about is You are all stealing DVD's and CD's...
Like you could afford a T1 or T3...oh, I forgot, the plan is to STEAL enough to be able to AFFORD the HSI...so you can steal MORE.
I am sure that flights are available every day...
I am sure that the Japanese and the Koreans will let you steal all you want. After all, you're Americans.
--
A is A | |
| | | | | Re: The only thing I'm surprised about is Actually, I currently pay for my own T1 because of exactly these kinds of practices. There is no broadband available here where servers aren't banned. And props to you for assuming I am stealing DVDs and CDs when the only thing I use it for is to run servers. You pro-RIAA/MPAA/TCPA trolls are all the same. | |
| | | | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: The only thing I'm surprised about is said by indigo:...for assuming I am stealing DVDs and CDs when the only thing I use it for is to run servers. You are correct for calling me onto the carpet for lumping you in the same category as those who do steal.
I did have an exclusion for you, specifically, when I was typing the post, but apparently it failed to get in there during 'the heat of battle'.
You have my public apology...
--
A is A | |
|
| |  k...
Bandwidth for ISP's gets cheaper with time. It doesn't get more expensive unless you keep offering higher and higher speeds to your end users, stop feeding people bulls**t.
»Backbones Getting Cheaper
If they pushed things too far, too fast, that's their fault. Users should switch if they feel mistreated, plain and simple. Don't bitch, switch. I would gladly switch to lower bandwidth with less restrictions if I started getting hit with this garbage. Take action against heavy users, don't cap EVERYONE so severely. Jerks. | |
| | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: k... said by Duhhrrr:
Users should switch if they feel mistreated, plain and simple. Don't bitch, switch. Thumbs Up!
The Voice of Reason in a Sea of Ignorance...
--
A is A | |
|
| | ... here 's what i don't get. you're complaining about being offered for example, 5Mbps and only getting to use half of that because of shaping or whatever.
do you buy a brand new Ferrari, knowing that it can go 300km/h, KNOWING that you'll only be able to go around 1/3rd of that speed in most areas? sure you can take your car to a race track or whatever, or into the middle of nowhere, and go to full speed there, if you wished.
you DO get your full bandwidth if you use it as intended. read their TOS and you'll see YOU'RE in the wrong. | |
| | | | Re: ... Your analogy is flawed.
It's more like getting a ferrari SO YOU CAN GO TO THE TRACK and then finding out there's speed bumps. | |
| | | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: ... Yeah...but you CAN go 180 MPH between the speed bumps, can't you?
Shaping is the way of the future...at least until the Big Iron (servers and switches) get built out.
Spread it oouuuuuttttttt...d/l at night, spread it around a bit.
If you want to run full throttle all day and all night, then you are going to get nuked.
You deserve it.
--
A is A | |
|
approval from:
John Galt 
| Miscellaneous There are a lot of miscellaneous issues that get lost in the shuffle in such a broad topic. I'd like to start a reasonable discussion on several issues.
A) Using P2P to distribute content such as patches, legal versions of HL2, etc. Traditionally, a company pays for bandwidth. By using BT to distribute demos (150MB for DoW, how much for beta World of Warcraft? 2.5GB? Planetside 1.1GB?) and patches etc, these companies are saving on bandwidth costs, maybe $1000 or more per T1 in some extreme cases. This, however, is not a "win-win" scenario. The ISP is out for revenue that they should have had. This shows up in layoffs and earlier retirement packages, degrading service for changes to the network, including upgrades. The traffic management shaping switch that Shaw uses is not supposed (according to what I have heard) to cut off streaming media. The content provider should have to pay for this, and therefore should have a product where the combination of customers buying and distributors paying (advertising) more than makes up for the costs of distribution, sort of like specialty channels on cable. If you can't meet this threshold, you don't have a product. It's nice to use BT to get your latest fix of RvB, but someone should be paying for something somewhere down the line. Jobs for people (SBC and Bell Canada come to mind this week) depend on this, as do network upgrades. Am I biased? Yes. My own job depends on this.
B) The grass is greener. People have mentioned Korea and Japan as offering better internet speeds. As for Korea, you get to live beside a communist dictator armed with nuclear weapons. As for Japan, good luck getting a job and don't they have huge fines for any type of pr0n? Other flaws include the fact that the content you want to download (english web pages) and share (say BT Smallville or The O.C. episodes) will be much slower because you're sharing a trans-oceanic link. As for Sweden and Norway; while I do want to visit Europe, I'm quite content living in Canada, thank you.
C) Infrastructure. The federal government may be paying for railroad and highway infrastructure improvements, but few governments (federal or provincial - Sasktel excepted) are paying for telecom infrastructure upgrades. The problem is worse is Shaw's case, as it is not the backbone that is the problem, it's the last mile uploads from the home to the hub. Getting the federal government to pay for it would be like getting them to pay for the streets in your neighborhood; not gonna happen. Sprint's $20 all-you-eat long distance plan in the mid 1990s through open the floodgate and started the Telecom and Internet bubble. In the aftermath of such devastation, the survivors, including Shaw, are hesitant about taking risks without a proven model. For example, check out Cablevision's VOIP. Because they were successful, we're going to try it. The limiting factors for cable companies are mindsets more than infrastructure. Cable companies have a mindset of restoring service if it goes does; telcos have a mindset of preventing service from going down. Silly things like picking up a phone and getting dial tone. While cable companies have superior theoretical distribution to the home with co-ax, there are other factors that limit last mile traffic. These limitations exist in the form of CRTC regulations, customer expectations, technological innovation (cost-benefit analysis of network retrogrades - putting in DOCSIS versus the propriety gear from TeraWave/TeraYon), planned services expansion for HDTV and VOD, customer expectations, absorbing acquisitions from the Bubble Years (particularly in Winnipeg and Edmonton), fiber exhaustion in Vancouver, etc etc. There are always trade-offs, and while a specific end customer may not see it or feel that this is the way it is, I have faith that our higher-ups (people whose last name starts with 'S' and ends with 'haw') try to make money by pleasing as many people as we can as often as we can. I throw out the question to you, what new services has Shaw offered in the last ten years? Lots. High-speed internet. More channels. Star-Choice (part-owner I think). Specialty Ethnic channels and programming (except for Saskatchewan). There is a lot of turmoil in the industry; based on what I've seen, BT caught us by surprise with it's upload traffic built into the protocol. It turns out that our infrastructure is not as efficient for sharers, it's more efficient for leechers. Would anyone have thought of this when designing the BT protocol? Ie, maybe this requires a "sourceforge" solution rather than a "Shaw" solution; changes to the protocol rather than changes to our network. It's much much much cheaper for all involved. Look at this way: sharing is better for Bell, Telus, SBC, Verizon networks, leeching is better for Shaw, Comcast, Rogers networks. Something people probably didn't realize 6 months ago.
Anyways, there was more that I wanted to talk about (like competition - if you're in BC or AB, you're immediate ISP may not be Shaw or Telus, but you're probably riding on one of our networks - or like use-specific purposes, like doing design work in North America but getting the designs built in China), but that's probably a good start. I'll check back tomorrow, and will try to respond to honest comments or queries. Please don't troll me; we all have better things to do than bicker back and forth. Thanks for your time, and good night. | |
| | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | Re: Miscellaneous WAY too reasoned and well presented...
You'll never last here in the Forums.
--
A is A | |
| | | | ShawInsider: Why wouldn't Shaw allow more tiers? I wouldn't mind paying a little more for the good speeds again. Or perhaps set up a system deal with apartment managers. Fibre to your building in a central switch room, and then a LAN from there. Of course Shaw wouldn't have to build the LAN, just run some fibre up to the building and leave it to the manager to set it up from there.
It's not that I don't want to pay for my service, or am trying to get as much as I can for the least amount possible, I just want fast internet and am willing to pay for it. | |
|
| | How can people be so short-sighted... i) ISP's that plainly advertise "unlimited usage" means (in English anyway) unlimited, without restriction, without any limits.
Don't construe anything else from that unless you work for the ISP and are responsible for marketing said service and wish to declare a change.
Don't bother with the TOS either as far as their 'network protection' clauses are concerned. There's absolutely no specificity in it. It's too vague as to allow the ISP to interpret that in absolutely any way they want, and any restrictions/limits they derive and impose from those 'clauses' are simply an outright contradiction to what they advertise as "UNLIMITED"-- there's just no way around it. period.
We all know that they advertise as such to attract customers and in cases such as this, it's simply deceptive to continue doing so. This is tantamount to false and misleading advertising, aka a bait-n-switch. No more no less.
So they counted on only 1 out of 10 users per/node being the "heavy" user and they built the system with that in mind, not caring about his "full throttle" usage. It's fine for years until those numbers don't work anymore.
The problem is they want to have their cake and eat it too by now "LIMITING" those users who are "breaking" their numbers scheme so to speak, instead of upgrading their infrastructure to handle the changing demands of users.
Now instead of 1 out of 10, it's 5 out of 10. Well, that's life, too bad buddy. Get with the program and do the right thing by either:
a) upgrading infrastructure for the 'new math' OR
b) Immediately CEASE and DESIST advertising "UNLIMITED"
The old saying applies, "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
And save the "all you can eat buffet" analogies. If a *nationwide* food chain advertised all you can eat salads and it's stores began throwing out people, I guarantee you'd hear about on the nightly news.
A mom'n'pop Chinese restaurant just aint gonna get that kind of attention so they can get away with it, we all know this.
ii) (and more importantly I might add) ISP's don't give a good god damned whether the data represents legal OR ILLEGAL files, so preachers, STOP PREACHING.
All they care about is bandwidth usage, and the saturation of their now "ill equipped" networks.
I can't wait to see one year or so from now when real VOD streaming "DVD quality" movies (which is one of the all-time, long-awaited promises of "broadband") become popular, and now YOU-- PLUS 7 or 8 out of 10 "computer illiterate" users (not all those "warez" people that you shun) are streaming 2 hour movies which require 3-4Mbps of bandwidth.
Are you gonna cry then because a service you perhaps *pay* for is being throttled down to 128Kbps by your ISP? Are you gonna yell it's unfair because they still advertise their service as "UNLIMITED"?
Don't you dare say no.
You can bet your ass a situation of that nature would make the nightly news and would be a embarrassment for any large ISP.
What's going on here is just plain wrong, you all know it. It's immoral and unethical; it's reminiscent of a company that is more concerned with its' bottom line, pleasing investors, and making sure upper echelon management looks good and doesn't have to take a pay cut.
That unfortunately describes many companies and is the way it is, but defending them when they take actions in this manner is ludicrous and inappropriate to say the least. | |
| | John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: How can people be so short-sighted... said by jimboe:Don't bother with the TOS either as far as their 'network protection' clauses are concerned. There's absolutely no specificity in it. It's too vague as to allow the ISP to interpret that in absolutely any way they want, and any restrictions/limits they derive and impose from those 'clauses' are simply an outright contradiction to what they advertise as "UNLIMITED"-- there's just no way around it. period. They are the provider...they have TOS to which you must agree to use their service. Kinda like EULA's.
Just because you don't agree with the 'fine print' doesn't mean that you are free to ignore it. It's their service and they are free to do whatever they want when providing that service, just as you are free to NOT use the service and go somewhere else if the TOS, or changes in service, are not to your liking.
You are right about one thing, however.
There's just no way around it.
Period.
--
A is A | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | JunkTorrent Never worked well at all to begin with for me. When it did I was lucky to achieve 56k speeds. | |
| | | instead of throttling, CHARGE for usage I would think that instead of Shaw or Telus Throttling the bandwidth, they should start to charge the people for the bandwidth they use.
If someone wants to use BitTorrent, and downloads a LOT of material, they should be charged for the bandwidth they use. Why have people that Don't try to download movies, etc, pay the same amount people who hog bandwidth do? | |
| | | | Re: instead of throttling, CHARGE for usage True that ! ISP's shouldn't be soft on bandwidth usage. It's their responsibility to provide a decent and optimal service to their customers.
--
CiG | |
|
| |  Help - Shaw VS. Telus - In Langley
I'd like to elicit some advice as to whether Shaw cable or Telus ADSL would be better suited for my needs. I use bittorrent for movies, tv, music and whatnot. Nothing too excessive. But I like Six Feet Under, and old Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episodes and I'd like to be able to download them in a reasonably quick time. My game playing is limited to MSN messenger's solitaire showdown (speed wins the game). The price of Shaw vs. Telus is not an issue. And I live in Langley - in the Lower Mainland, but not the "hub" that is Vancouver.
Any thoughts?
Thanks!
Caroline | |
| | | OH WHAT FUN have you ever looked back on a forum and read what you typed? I find it a great past time especially this forum (or should i say harem?) you are all acting like a bunch of female school kids (females are the most dangerous to play with :P (i have sisters i know)); Quit B1tching.
Companies will do whatever they want and you have no say in it so shutup and do what everybody else does Live With It . If you dont like shaw try telus or vice versa if you dont like either go with AOL (though i pity you) I myself use bittorrent tons i dont care if they limit it so what it will just take 30 days to get the file i want rather then an hour I HAVE A LIFE. (and yes i download anime like crazy) I am paying 40 dollars a month to download unlicensed anime that is costing a person in japan 50 dollars to buy it and then rip. WHO CARES! (i think i get the better deal)
If you have never heard this one here it is, "You Get What You Pay For." Quit whining and be a man (or woman) but grow up we live a world where a company is there to make money not keep customers (have you ever called tech support lately i dont think i could understand anything they say) If a company is making more money by losing you as a customer so be it they are happy and they dont give a rats a$$ about you at all. Live With It.
Now back to you harem girls (i know i was rude but i think i got through to you) | |
| xenyx
join:2004-12-03
Mooresville, MO | yo dawg!! I Figured out the problem! yo!! all you dawg's out there! I Figured out the fux1ng problem yo!!! it's SP2! im on shaw in greater vanc00ver and I did an update for SP2 that increases the amount of connections to your computer man! just grab it here!!!
»www.lvllord.de/
fuck man! im downloadin BT's at 350 kb/s again.. peace | |
| | |  bittorrent traffic vs. streaming audio
What's the difference between using your internet connection (and ISP traffic) for bittorrent rather than internet streaming audio (net radio stations @ 160kbps)?
I listen to a 160kbps audio stream for 8 hrs at a time. Doesn't this use up the same if not MORE ISP bandwidth as a bittorrent stream?
I never hear ISP's complain about the net being used for other common uses such as internet radio - that obviously use bandwidth.
your comments?
160kbps = 9.6MB/min = 576MB/hr = 4.6 Gigs in 8 hrs. Why doesn't shaw choke the audio streams too while they're at it... | |
| | | | Re: bittorrent traffic vs. streaming audio umm, for the above post, try checking your math. 160kbps = 160 kilo BITS/s 1byte = 8 bits... so 160kbps/8 = 20k/s, 1200k/minute (1.17mb/minute) about 70mb~/hour | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Shaw
| BT Throttling was only a Trial for Vancouver Shaw only implemented a trial on BT throttling in the Vancouver market, and due to the economic costs of maintaining such a system it was determined that it would be viable to maintain and monitor every single packet. Therefore this new system WILL NOT be expanded, and will probbaly be removed from the Vancouver market. | |
| | | I got a call from the local.. Shaw in my area stating that my household had way too much traffic and that we should limit ourselves. The Shaw Customer Service said 1 Gig was average and 30 gigs was high but acceptable.
He said our traffic was much higher, 150 gigs per month for the last few months and that it needs to be stopped.
 | |
|  d12
@shawcable.net | Shaw rate shaping BitTorrents with Elacoya's Three simple letters Shaw
QoS
Perhaps your network guys should read a book. Shaping torrents to 1k is stupid and you might as well just turn it off. What they should do is mark the traffic with the absolute lowest priority and let ppl have at it.
Dumbasses. | |
| | | john galt Hey dickface, get off your high horse. | |
| | | Crappy bandwidth Does shaw capping their bandwidth to ridiculously sad and pathetic levels for the #1 consumer of bandwidth suck? Absolutely. No one likes slow upload rates including myself. Is it realistic to limit the bandwidth to restrict traffic? Maybe. But almost any decent ISP out there can load pages with decent speed. But when shaw's upload rates are almost insulting, you can damn well believe ill be looking for a new ISP. If shaw doesn't have the money to update their system (2-3 million is NOT outrageous for a monster company like shaw) then i sure as hell don't see them having enough cash flow once they start losing costumers at a rate a hell of a lot faster then their bandwidth upload rate. | |
|
| |
|
