 BillPremium,VIP
join:2001-12-09 | What's the point of getting around traffic shaping? If people start downloading at full speed again, what's the point? The ISP will probably just put a monthly usage cap on the service.
Now you're back to the same place you started before encryption...
--
Bill
SocalServer.com: LA Game Servers
Check out our public servers |
|
|
|
 TekkananoPremium
join:2002-03-02
Alexandria, VA | The whole point is to "test" what the ISPs are really gonna do about it. Then the fun starts from there on. |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to Bill
said by Bill:If people start downloading at full speed again, what's the point? The ISP will probably just put a monthly usage cap on the service. Now you're back to the same place you started before encryption... Encryption makes no nevermind to me...
I apply a "fairness" algorithm to all my subs. It is set up so that if the bandwidth is available with few users, then you can go for it. As the number of users increases, the bandwidth to the heavy users is throttled back so everyone has "fair access". When the number of users gets low again, speeds for heavy users go back up.
Something like this:
»www.netequalizer.com/
Doesn't matter if it is unencrypted or not, P2P, FTP or anything else...it is done "bit by bit", so to speak.
--
A is A |
|
BillPremium,VIP
join:2001-12-09 | reply to Tekkanano
I understand that.
But if certain ISP's have no problem with throttling users' bandwidth, do you really think they won't setup caps?
If they have no problem with throttling, I don't think they'll even blink an eye when setting up monthly usage caps.
--
Bill
SocalServer.com: LA Game Servers
Check out our public servers |
|
| reply to John Galt
Encryption was hearlded as the solution to throttling, but unfortunatly for Rogers users, encrytpion does little to help.
Explaination here:
»Rogers: "Encryption will not matter in throttling BT" |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to Bill
most already have caps |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to Tekkanano
Actually the whole point is to keep ISP's from discriminating based on the protocol. In the article the Azureus people even say that an acceptable outcome would be tiered pricing or per bit pricing.
--
Asking those who disagree with you to find support of your arguements is like asking an assailant if you can borrow his gun. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| I am not sure it is about discrimination, it is more about prioritization. Many different ISPs have different solutions to increase overall download and upload bandwidth performance.
What is the problem with waiting a little longer for a non-important music file or linux image and allowing other usage like VOIP and http traffic to operate better? It is more to suit the masses, not the minority. The alternative is higher prices for the package you purchase so the ISP does not lose money on there overall backbones to the net. Plus, more customers happy a very very small portion a little more sad. |
|
TekkananoPremium
join:2002-03-02
Alexandria, VA | reply to Combat Chuck
That'll be interesting to see that happen to most ISPs. |
|
Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to keyboard5684
said by keyboard5684:What is the problem with waiting a little longer for a non-important music file or linux image and allowing other usage like VOIP and http traffic to operate better? Depends on the providers network. If there is enough of the latter the former could be basically snubbed out.
The problem is that BT and other forms of P2P are exposing the inherent flaw in the all you can eat model when there are two vastly different sets of customers.
--
Asking those who disagree with you to find support of your arguements is like asking an assailant if you can borrow his gun. |
|
| reply to keyboard5684
The only problem that I have with that, is: what is to say that my wanting to download an mp3 file, linux image, game patch, or video feed is not as important or of less priority than someone else's http surfing?
VOIP is a priority service, however, and I do agree somewhat with making sure that it has supreme quality. |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | reply to keyboard5684
It's not even like they're putting a lower QOS on the bittorrent packets. They're downright throttling them down to nothing. If they put a lower QOS on them then it'd still work farily fast unless their network was overloaded with higher priority traffic. |
|
