ADSL24 and P2P

One of my main bandwidth suckers is US tele which I normally pull down via
P2P. How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page says they block no ports and
employ no throttling. I'll only be able to get 1Mb which is a tiny pipe.
Am I likely to get moaning letters for downloading I'd guess about 6-10GB a
month?

Cheers.

WCZ.

In article <fnukv9$tpg$(E-Mail Removed)>,
WCZ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>One of my main bandwidth suckers is US tele which I normally pull down via
>P2P. How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page says they block no ports and
>employ no throttling. I'll only be able to get 1Mb which is a tiny pipe.
>Am I likely to get moaning letters for downloading I'd guess about 6-10GB a
>month?

Why don't you just look at their web page?

They appear to be an Entanet reseller, so it depends on the package you
buy off them, but in all cases, if you do your downloading after 10pm,
then you'll have planty of capacity.

http://adsl24.co.uk/broadband_home.php

Gordon

"Gordon Henderson" <gordon+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fnulir$17at$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <fnukv9$tpg$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> WCZ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>One of my main bandwidth suckers is US tele which I normally pull down via
>>P2P. How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page says they block no ports
>>and
>>employ no throttling. I'll only be able to get 1Mb which is a tiny pipe.
>>Am I likely to get moaning letters for downloading I'd guess about 6-10GB
>>a
>>month?
>
> Why don't you just look at their web page?
>

I did. They don't specifically say they are happy for P2P to be used
whereas one of the other Entanet suppliers does say that. If they are
anti-P2P which was my question then I'll have to look elsewhere.

> They appear to be an Entanet reseller, so it depends on the package you
> buy off them, but in all cases, if you do your downloading after 10pm,
> then you'll have planty of capacity.
>
> http://adsl24.co.uk/broadband_home.php
>
> Gordon

WCZ wrote:
> "Gordon Henderson" <gordon+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:fnulir$17at$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <fnukv9$tpg$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> WCZ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> One of my main bandwidth suckers is US tele which I normally pull
>>> down via P2P. How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page says they
>>> block no ports and
>>> employ no throttling. I'll only be able to get 1Mb which is a tiny
>>> pipe. Am I likely to get moaning letters for downloading I'd guess
>>> about 6-10GB a
>>> month?
>>
>> Why don't you just look at their web page?
>>
>
> I did. They don't specifically say they are happy for P2P to be used
> whereas one of the other Entanet suppliers does say that. If they are
> anti-P2P which was my question then I'll have to look elsewhere.

I don't think any ISP is "anti-P2P"?
What they are "anti" is bandwidth usage.
Provided you don't use any significant bandwidth they are perfectly happy
for you to use P2P )

Be warned that some ISP's are a bit too enthusiastic about supplying
subscriber details to third party copyright lawyers in defiance of EU
privacy regulations. Always use a dynamic IP address if possible.

(kim)

On 01 Feb 2008, kim wrote

> WCZ wrote:
>> "Gordon Henderson" <gordon+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:fnulir$17at$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In article <fnukv9$tpg$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> WCZ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> One of my main bandwidth suckers is US tele which I normally
>>>> pull down via P2P. How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page
>>>> says they block no ports and
>>>> employ no throttling. I'll only be able to get 1Mb which is
>>>> a tiny pipe. Am I likely to get moaning letters for
>>>> downloading I'd guess about 6-10GB a
>>>> month?
>>>
>>> Why don't you just look at their web page?
>>>
>>
>> I did. They don't specifically say they are happy for P2P to
>> be used whereas one of the other Entanet suppliers does say
>> that. If they are anti-P2P which was my question then I'll
>> have to look elsewhere.
>
> I don't think any ISP is "anti-P2P"?
> What they are "anti" is bandwidth usage.
> Provided you don't use any significant bandwidth they are
> perfectly happy for you to use P2P )

I don't think that's quite correct: I'm sure I've read of ISPs
that openly say they use software to prioritise traffic and to
specifically throttle PSP usage.

(Can't think of the relevant companies, though -- Plusnet, maybe?)

--
Cheers,
Harvey

HVS wrote:

>> I don't think any ISP is "anti-P2P"?
>> What they are "anti" is bandwidth usage.
>> Provided you don't use any significant bandwidth they are
>> perfectly happy for you to use P2P )

> I don't think that's quite correct: I'm sure I've read of ISPs
> that openly say they use software to prioritise traffic and to
> specifically throttle PSP usage.

He is correct. ISPs might say that they employ software specifically to
throttle P2P, but that's only because P2P is an enormous chunk of the
bandwidth their customers use. If any other protocol used
disproportionately large amounts of bandwidth, they'd throttle that too.

Remember, P2P (in moderation) is not an ISP's enemy. The legal
implications are insignificant when weighed against the additional
subscribers an ISP can attract. Network capacity is their only
motivation for throttling its use.

--
Jay L. T. Cornwall
http://www.jcornwall.me.uk/

On 01 Feb 2008, Jay L. T. Cornwall wrote

> HVS wrote:
>
>>> I don't think any ISP is "anti-P2P"?
>>> What they are "anti" is bandwidth usage.
>>> Provided you don't use any significant bandwidth they are
>>> perfectly happy for you to use P2P )
>
>> I don't think that's quite correct: I'm sure I've read of ISPs
>> that openly say they use software to prioritise traffic and to
>> specifically throttle PSP usage.
>
> He is correct. ISPs might say that they employ software
> specifically to throttle P2P, but that's only because P2P is an
> enormous chunk of the bandwidth their customers use. If any
> other protocol used disproportionately large amounts of
> bandwidth, they'd throttle that too.

Fair 'nuff; I thought they were probably analysing upload/download
ratios or something, rather than sheer volume -- but I don't know
the technical details.

> Remember, P2P (in moderation) is not an ISP's enemy. The legal
> implications are insignificant when weighed against the
> additional subscribers an ISP can attract. Network capacity is
> their only motivation for throttling its use.
>

(I did know that -- their concern is the bandwidth used by, not the
legalities of, P2P traffic; same concern they've got with the
Beeb's iPlayer and similar stuff.)



--
Cheers,
Harvey

I was just thinking how wonderful life was, when "WCZ"
<(E-Mail Removed)> opened his gob and said:

> How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page says they block no ports and
>employ no throttling.

True

>Am I likely to get moaning letters for downloading I'd guess about 6-10GB a
>month?

You amateur <g>. You will just get charged the next package up plus a
£5 admin fee.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

WCZ wrote:
> One of my main bandwidth suckers is US tele which I normally pull
> down via P2P. How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page says they
> block no ports and employ no throttling. I'll only be able to get
> 1Mb which is a tiny pipe. Am I likely to get moaning letters for
> downloading I'd guess about 6-10GB a month?

Since you're using P2P you will also be charged for uploads which can easily
be as much as twice your download total. The limit is for *total* bandwidth
usage not just for downloads. In effect you are paying for everyone else's
downloads. Personally I would avoid any kind of P2P with a bandwidth cap.

(kim)

kim wrote:
> WCZ wrote:
>> One of my main bandwidth suckers is US tele which I normally pull
>> down via P2P. How are ADSL24 and P2P? Their info page says they
>> block no ports and employ no throttling. I'll only be able to get
>> 1Mb which is a tiny pipe. Am I likely to get moaning letters for
>> downloading I'd guess about 6-10GB a month?
>
> Since you're using P2P you will also be charged for uploads which can easily
> be as much as twice your download total. The limit is for *total* bandwidth
> usage not just for downloads. In effect you are paying for everyone else's
> downloads. Personally I would avoid any kind of P2P with a bandwidth cap.
>

Why? The limits for ADSL24 are very generous, especially off peak.