Adsl User Quota's

[INTJ]

Very simply put, there are people out there having their P2P programs race all day, downloading stuff they most probably will never use or watch.

There is a group of people out there who run their connections 100% 24/7, because if they don't, they have this nagging feeling they paid for something they didn't completely use.

They don't actually run their connection full blast because they really need the stuff.

Nowadays with the proliferation of the p2p networks, when you are on a contention ratio of 40:1, you have a fair chance that some of these subscribers are out somewhere enjoying a beer, while their connection is laboring away downloading utterly useless stuff, resulting in reduced speeds for you.

In my experience, P2P programs hardly "race" here. A trickle would be a more accurate description.

Who are these people "out there, downloading utterly useless stuff they don't actually need and will never watch" ?.

Do you know any of them ? How many of "these people" are there ? How much bandwidth are they using ? Who decides what is "utterly useless stuff" ?

And do you seriously think any regained capacity will remain unsold here ?

Basically no-ones connection will improve, ISP's will make loads more money. Thats what this is all about, increasing profits (that is if any of this is TRUE at all). When has customer service ever been an issue with anything here ? Still, an interesting debate either way.

Cheers,

INTJ.

.

Edited June 25, 2007 by INTJ

[astral]

........ most ISP's in the West have these caps, either clearly stated or hidden in the "fair use" policy.

Usually the latter.

I read an advert for an 8Mb/s link in the UK.

In the small print it said that the first 1Gb was free..........

A small calculation showed that that represented 17 minutes of use........

What is one supposed to do for the rest of the month???????????? :D

I regularly download 10Gb a month, often more

and I feel these limits are outrageous, if not CLEARLY stated up front.

[Firefoxx]

I actually do personally know of several people who leave their bitorrent programs on at FULL BLAST 24/7 (no, not a trickle, they just queue up as many files as they can to completely saturate their bandwidth). And this is just the people who I've met on the net. They tend to boast of how much they can actually download, like "last month I downloaded 300GB" (really). They also tend to moan and groan about how they never have the time to watch all they want, or the space to store it (as in they just download it for the heck of it). Their two favorite mottos: "I paid for the bandwidth, so I'm entitled to it" and "If I don't use all the bandwidth, I'm not getting my money's worth". I always tell them what I think, but they ignore me, since they're selfish people. THEY DO EXIST, I can attest to that. You can go ahead and read the Thai bittorrent forums and ADSL forums yourself (if you can read Thai), there are plenty of people boasting about their downloads.

Even if the regained bandwidth was re-sold, as long as the policy remains in place, the usage will remain manageable. Say you have 40:1 contention ratio, and 1 of those 40 is an abuser, while the rest are normal users. Bandwidth usage is around 90% to that single user, while the remaining 10% is for the rest of the people, and so their speeds are horrible. Now you have that abuser kicked out, and replaced with another abuser. Same thing, but he also gets kicked out. He's replaced by a normal user. Now, everyone using that bandwidth is equally sharing it and enjoying good speeds.

CONSUMER ADSL IS A SHARED MEDIUM. You do not buy exclusive rights to the bandwidth when you pay so little for it, so you are expected to use it responsibly.

As stated before, I advocate bandwidth limits as long as they're reasonable. 3GB/month is of course not reasonable, except for maybe a 128k line.

[INTJ]

Lighten up mate. Downloading files is not crime of the century.

Perhaps if all "those people" didn't browse pointless forums and websites and send unecessary emails all day we'd get better torrent speeds (currently 3 files at 4kbps). Just another way of looking at things.

A similar discussion going on here in the UK :-

http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a141.asp

Cheers,

INTJ.

.

[A_Traveller]

Lighten up mate. Downloading files is not crime of the century.

Perhaps if all "those people" didn't browse pointless forums and websites and send unecessary emails all day we'd get better torrent speeds (currently 3 files at 4kbps). Just another way of looking at things.

A similar discussion going on here in the UK :-

http://www.weeklygripe.co.uk/a141.asp

Cheers,

INTJ.

The key issue here is that p2p generates far more traffic than http or ftp access. As I mentioned earlier: 5% of requests, 45%+ of actual traffic. That the reason for the skewed impact. Also it's capacity not speed that's where the laws of physics come in..

Not a crime, indeed my usage of the process is most often targeted at software distributions from universities, but. of course the illegal or at least grey areas are the ones which grab the headlines.

Regards

/edit capacity point//

Edited June 25, 2007 by A_Traveller

[monty]

Hmmm, of the top of my head I know 3 of those people.

They wouldn't know that when downloading only 3 files they would get slow speeds, they have literally hundreds of files queued up to download, managing to saturate their bandwidth. They have so many downloads lined up that each and every single one can take several weeks to complete. Often they throw out 80% completed downloads because they even try to download stuff their P2P program told them is not complete, or simply the lost interest in that particular thing...

I have had concerned parents ask me to come over to take a look at their kids' PC, when their 14 year old son was asking for a new hard drive since the one inside his PC was full. This was in a 6 week old PC with a 500 gig hard drive, and they were on a 512kbps package. Never seen such a collection of music, not even video. Some 6000 hours of music!!! That's two years to listen to everything when playing 8 hours a day! The parents were always complaining why their internet was so slow, now they know!

And I'm not too sure about the ISP's having ONLY money inside their head. I'm on a more expensive business package, and they manage to give me 60% of rated speed always, and most often I'm at 85% of rated speed.

So they are definitely not putting the premium I pay them in their pockets, but actually spend it in extra bandwidth (= lower contention ratio).

This is just one step up from the home package, and not the hugely expensive guaranteed speed business package...

[INTJ]

It would be interesting to hear TV members opinions as to what constitutes "fair usage" (expressed in gigabytes per calender month, downloads only, not uploads). I would say an absolute minimum of 50 gig on a 1Mbps connection.

Also worth bearing in mind I have a 4 port router, with 3 PC's running off this one connection (mine, mrs, kids).

INTJ

Edited June 25, 2007 by INTJ

[A_Traveller]

<snip>

Also worth bearing in mind I have a 4 port router, with 3 PC's running of this one connection.

INTJ

Which may not be 'permitted' by your contract with your provider even in the UK. Most domestic contracts were originally defined by access points, i.e. 1 contract per PC. This then changed to access by approved equipment i.e. specified home WiFi or router. However, in Thailand, for example, if you add a WiFi router to your existing single user account you are probably in breach of the 'small print' unless you argue you only use one machine at one time.

This is one reason why WiFi enabled packages cost more, after all a WiFi unit will hold an IP address all day whereas a single unit will release the address once it is switched off, let alone through put issues.

Regards

[monty]

I think I posted it before, on a home package, give or take 25% of capacity sounds pretty fair to me.

On a 1mbps connection that would be some 75GB. IMO that definitely covers most "fair use"...

Most probably if you have a home package, it will be explicitly stated (in the small print of course) that only one PC can be hooked up to that connection.

Going through a switch/router/whatever and hooking up several PC's would be a contract breach to start with...

Again, not much of a point for home usage, but I know several internet cafe's running of a home package! I call that stealing, although the defenders of uncapped downloads would argue "what does it matter, they are paying for 1 mbps aren't they?"

[Mid]

although the defenders of uncapped downloads would argue "what does it matter, they are paying for 1 mbps aren't they?"

not this one ,

my original TOT router as supplied was a 4 porter .

[TAWP]

The key issue here is that p2p generates far more traffic than http or ftp access. As I mentioned earlier: 5% of requests, 45%+ of actual traffic. That the reason for the skewed impact. Also it's capacity not speed that's where the laws of physics come in..

Incorrect. The main articles on this, in complete disagreement with you, is that up to 35% of the current bandwith of the world is taken up by 'video on demand', often clip-sites as youtube.com, break.com, liveleak.com and so on. And it's rising sharply.

So you might think that your 1 out of 100 or less customers that run torrents at any higher rate (even most torrent-users don't max out or que up enough to be anywhere near to full usage at most times) might saturate your bandwitdh and want to get back on them for using up 'your' bandwith for surfing. But it's only in your head.

And for the record, I'm having no problems, speed-wise, to surf/email/chat. Infact it has improved a lot lately as oppose to 2 years ago. Which would go against your prediction that p2p-users would saturate the bandwidth. Oh, and to make it really clear: most ISPs are heavily into traffic-shaping and protocol-based priority-sorting. So any slow speed you are feeling might be of other reasons than just the total bandwidth being saturated.

[globalrover]

I heard via a pal who attended the communicAsia conference in Singapore this week, that all Thai ISP's are giving serious thought to implementing user quotas of about 3gbs per month starting in August.

Any truth to this or just another bad rumour?

This is the first I have heard about restrictions of this nature and can only assume that there some form of misunderstanding has taken place - as one responder has already pointed out many of us would get through this quota just after breakfast!

Best regards to all

Global Rover

[A_Traveller]

The key issue here is that p2p generates far more traffic than http or ftp access. As I mentioned earlier: 5% of requests, 45%+ of actual traffic. That the reason for the skewed impact. Also it's capacity not speed that's where the laws of physics come in..

Incorrect. The main articles on this, in complete disagreement with you, is that up to 35% of the current bandwith of the world is taken up by 'video on demand', often clip-sites as youtube.com, break.com, liveleak.com and so on. And it's rising sharply.

So you might think that your 1 out of 100 or less customers that run torrents at any higher rate (even most torrent-users don't max out or que up enough to be anywhere near to full usage at most times) might saturate your bandwitdh and want to get back on them for using up 'your' bandwith for surfing. But it's only in your head.

Oh, and to make it really clear: most ISPs are heavily into traffic-shaping and protocol-based priority-sorting. So any slow speed you are feeling might be of other reasons than just the total bandwidth being saturated.

Try reading all my posts not assuming you have. As I stated earlier post #17

Further the growth in demand for video p2p is creating an impact all over the web, not just here. {Estimates place it at about 5% of request traffic but 45%+ of overall web traffic}

Your second paragraph is nonsense.

My post # 21

It would be better in my view if they publicly stated a management policy, rather than, the surreptitious 'shaping', which is in use now.

Regards

[TAWP]

Your post clearly states that 45% of the bandwidth is taken by p2p-traffic, witch is false. Quoting your own post won't make it true. Or did you mean to say that you didn't infact mean this?

Your usage of 'video p2p' without a comma between them, makes it hard to know exactly what you mean since there is currently no 'video p2p' to talk about comparing to other usage areas.

[monty]

Today, CacheLogic estimates that P2P applications consume between 60 percent and 80 percent of capacity on consumer ISP networks. The fastest growth in P2P usage is coming in Asian nations with high broadband penetration rates, Parker said.

Source :http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2005/04/67202

Admittedly this was two years ago.

Thanks to YouTube alone consuming some 10% of all internet traffic, P2P traffic is now down to only 36% of internet usage in North America.

source:http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8855/HTTP+Tra...ses+P2P+Traffic

6 days ago!

And this for sure not the case in Thailand where youtube remains blocked!

So in the US it's only 36% P2P now, with youtube taking up a big chunk of traffic, I reckon in Thailand P2P networks eat closer to 50% of capacity...

[TAWP]

The article there also states that video-transfers are the one increasing while p2p is decreasing - something we have seen overall.

Also note that videostreaming has risen 56% since last year and continues to grow.

To avoid arguing numbers soly based on north america, can we agree on the fact that on a general note, videostreaming is on the increase and that p2p-traffic is decreasing?

[astral]

I have started a Poll to see how much TV members are downloading