[UK-Bug] News .. NTL & AOL

Short day for news today ...

A number of broadband subscribers of ISP Virgin.net have recieved a
stark warning about their historical usage of the service.

Read more @ http://snurl.com/37rf

Following evidently successful trials, AOL have publicly launched
their 1mbit ADSL offering.

Read more @ http://snurl.com/37rg
--
Andy Jenkins
UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
andy_nfTORIES@btopenworld..com, a.k.a Andy Jenkins says...


> A number of broadband subscribers of ISP Virgin.net have recieved a
> stark warning about their historical usage of the service.
>
> Read more @ http://snurl.com/37rf

I'm very undecided if this is a good or bad thing?

I'm a very limited P2P user, mainly downloading 'impossible to get'
music files (soundtracks from commercials, rare jazz, DJ samples etc)

Is this the way broadband is likely to go, restricted bandwidth?

Or should we be using that which we pay for to the full, expecting ISP's
to accommodate us?

I'd be interested to learn others views, as i'm not particularly placed
with an opinion on this one yet.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Andy Jenkins
said......

> Short day for news today ...
>
> A number of broadband subscribers of ISP Virgin.net have recieved a
> stark warning about their historical usage of the service.
>
> Read more @ http://snurl.com/37rf
>
That's how it started with BTInternet's 'unlimited' Anytime service. Now
you are allowed an average 5 hours per day.

--
Mugwump

Reply-to address is ignored.
Reply to 'usenetmail{at}discworld{dot}org{dot}uk

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:50:20 -0000, Tx2
<tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm a very limited P2P user, mainly downloading 'impossible to get'
>music files (soundtracks from commercials, rare jazz, DJ samples etc)

Justification is no excuse. Quick off to the gallows with this man !
;o)

>Is this the way broadband is likely to go, restricted bandwidth?

Honestly ? Yes, imho - bar a very few ISPs. The large ISPs I can
quite easily see limiting their usage for offnet traffic, eg BTYahoo,
AOL etc - their target audience is that the prolific P2P user, but
rather those that want a "closed" internet these days - ie the
respective portals of the said ISPs

>Or should we be using that which we pay for to the full, expecting ISP's
>to accommodate us?
>
>I'd be interested to learn others views, as i'm not particularly placed
>with an opinion on this one yet.

I too sit on the fence a bit here, and I can certainly see both sides
to the claims. On the one side as you say, there's the "I pay for
unlimited bandwidth - therefore, I want unlimited bandwidth".

There's the not so greedy begger (to which category I probably fall
into) who would not be overly disheartened by any limit, as he truely
knows to himself that his usage is not that high consistantly.

Then theres the "I want to be a tree" type of person who loves
everyone and all the world, and feels that we should be conserving the
ISPs network for the other subscribers.

There's arguments on all sides of this coin (yeah yeah - I know .. I
claim 3 different personas and used the hyperthetical 2 sided coin),
and its certainly going to be an issue thats going to come to a head
in the not so distant future.

We'll see it more when the likes of NTL do silly things. They've
announced today a broadband content deal - offering TV stations etc
over subscribers broadband connections. They also have the bandwidth
limit in force. Unless NTL plan to only "count" offnet traffic (ie
that destined or sourced from off the NTL network) this could be a
very silly move indeed.
--
Andy Jenkins
UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

Andy Jenkins wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:50:20 -0000, Tx2
> <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a very limited P2P user, mainly downloading 'impossible to get'
>>music files (soundtracks from commercials, rare jazz, DJ samples etc)
>
>
> Justification is no excuse. Quick off to the gallows with this man !
> ;o)
>
>
>>Is this the way broadband is likely to go, restricted bandwidth?
>
>
> Honestly ? Yes, imho - bar a very few ISPs. The large ISPs I can
> quite easily see limiting their usage for offnet traffic, eg BTYahoo,
> AOL etc - their target audience is that the prolific P2P user, but
> rather those that want a "closed" internet these days - ie the
> respective portals of the said ISPs

Look at web hosting... Hardly anyone offers unlimited/unmetered
bandwidth and I think this is the way broadband access will go. With
56k the volume of data being switched isn't such a big deal, with 512k
it becomes an issue for some ISPs, with 10, 100mbps it comes a much
bigger issue...

Besides, web browsing is a bursty activity. Very few people sit and
download pr0n 24/7. Most people have more "normal" usage patterns which
involve far less sustained downloading. Personally, I don't download
24/7 so I don't want to pay the price for downloading 24/7.

A while back in this group (might've been a.i.p.uk) someone mentioned
the dinner example, "you ate more than me so it isn't fair that we're
splitting the bill evenly". True, no one likes people like that but
it's a flawed analergy - the fat bloke doesn't eat >100 times more food
than anyone else. Realisiticly he's unlikely to eat more than twice as
much as anyone else and it's a social occasion - not an economists club...

>
>
>>Or should we be using that which we pay for to the full, expecting ISP's
>>to accommodate us?
>>
>>I'd be interested to learn others views, as i'm not particularly placed
>>with an opinion on this one yet.
>
>
> I too sit on the fence a bit here, and I can certainly see both sides
> to the claims. On the one side as you say, there's the "I pay for
> unlimited bandwidth - therefore, I want unlimited bandwidth".

Where does it say that? It's contended at 50:1, isn't it?

>
> There's the not so greedy begger (to which category I probably fall
> into) who would not be overly disheartened by any limit, as he truely
> knows to himself that his usage is not that high consistantly.
>
> Then theres the "I want to be a tree" type of person who loves
> everyone and all the world, and feels that we should be conserving the
> ISPs network for the other subscribers.

S'pose that's me :-)

>
> There's arguments on all sides of this coin (yeah yeah - I know .. I
> claim 3 different personas and used the hyperthetical 2 sided coin),
> and its certainly going to be an issue thats going to come to a head
> in the not so distant future.
>
> We'll see it more when the likes of NTL do silly things. They've
> announced today a broadband content deal - offering TV stations etc
> over subscribers broadband connections. They also have the bandwidth
> limit in force. Unless NTL plan to only "count" offnet traffic (ie
> that destined or sourced from off the NTL network) this could be a
> very silly move indeed.
> --
> Andy Jenkins
> UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:45:44 +0000, Alexander Mann <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Look at web hosting... Hardly anyone offers unlimited/unmetered
>bandwidth and I think this is the way broadband access will go. With
>56k the volume of data being switched isn't such a big deal, with 512k
>it becomes an issue for some ISPs, with 10, 100mbps it comes a much
>bigger issue...

There always has been and always will be an issue of traffic
management and quantity within an ISP. Even in the early days of
freephone 56k, a few ISPs got caught out (heh .. NTL got caught out
early on in their NTLWorld deal then too .. bit of a pattern emerging
here I think).

>Besides, web browsing is a bursty activity. Very few people sit and
>download pr0n 24/7. Most people have more "normal" usage patterns which
>involve far less sustained downloading. Personally, I don't download
>24/7 so I don't want to pay the price for downloading 24/7.

The issue of bandwidth capping on broadband lines would'nt be an issue
if everyone simply downloaded webpages. Its P2P (legal and illegal),
video & audio streaming thats causing the potential to cap.

I forget exactly, but the major ISPs worldwide were recently (about 6
months ago) asked to quantify the amount of P2P traffic on their
network. I believe it was staggeringly around the 75% mark.

>>
>> I too sit on the fence a bit here, and I can certainly see both sides
>> to the claims. On the one side as you say, there's the "I pay for
>> unlimited bandwidth - therefore, I want unlimited bandwidth".
>
>Where does it say that? It's contended at 50:1, isn't it?

Very true, and somthing I neglected to state. Even those that want an
unlimited service have shot themselves in the foot slightly by signing
up to a theoretically capped service in the first place.

Wait a minute - we're already capped then. Shock horror - quick ..
wheres the press ? )))

>>
>> There's the not so greedy begger (to which category I probably fall
>> into) who would not be overly disheartened by any limit, as he truely
>> knows to himself that his usage is not that high consistantly.
>>
>> Then theres the "I want to be a tree" type of person who loves
>> everyone and all the world, and feels that we should be conserving the
>> ISPs network for the other subscribers.
>
>S'pose that's me :-)

rotflmao
--
Andy Jenkins
UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

Andy Jenkins wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:45:44 +0000, Alexander Mann <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Look at web hosting... Hardly anyone offers unlimited/unmetered
>>bandwidth and I think this is the way broadband access will go. With
>>56k the volume of data being switched isn't such a big deal, with 512k
>>it becomes an issue for some ISPs, with 10, 100mbps it comes a much
>>bigger issue...
>
>
> There always has been and always will be an issue of traffic
> management and quantity within an ISP. Even in the early days of
> freephone 56k, a few ISPs got caught out (heh .. NTL got caught out
> early on in their NTLWorld deal then too .. bit of a pattern emerging
> here I think).
>
>
>>Besides, web browsing is a bursty activity. Very few people sit and
>>download pr0n 24/7. Most people have more "normal" usage patterns which
>>involve far less sustained downloading. Personally, I don't download
>>24/7 so I don't want to pay the price for downloading 24/7.
>
>
> The issue of bandwidth capping on broadband lines would'nt be an issue
> if everyone simply downloaded webpages. Its P2P (legal and illegal),
> video & audio streaming thats causing the potential to cap.

There's a bit more to it than that. P2P (kind of), video and audio are
ok. It's the way that some of these are used. P2P for example is often
left running 24/7 - that's where the real problem is.

BBCi and radio streams don't max out lines 24/7. Neither do patches,
virus defenitions, Linux ISOs, etc. Tbh, I'm not sure what some people
download. I can see that some of it's porn but there are limits for
most people and with a 2mbps connection you can prolly download faster
than you can watch it - let alone "use" it. I think the same applies to
almost everything else - some people just download for the sake of it
and I'd rather not pay for their "habbits" ;-)

>
> I forget exactly, but the major ISPs worldwide were recently (about 6
> months ago) asked to quantify the amount of P2P traffic on their
> network. I believe it was staggeringly around the 75% mark.
>

I *think* Zen say/said that 85% of traffic was for 15% of their users.
It is/was on their site somewhere.

>
>>>I too sit on the fence a bit here, and I can certainly see both sides
>>>to the claims. On the one side as you say, there's the "I pay for
>>>unlimited bandwidth - therefore, I want unlimited bandwidth".
>>
>>Where does it say that? It's contended at 50:1, isn't it?
>
>
> Very true, and somthing I neglected to state. Even those that want an
> unlimited service have shot themselves in the foot slightly by signing
> up to a theoretically capped service in the first place.
>
> Wait a minute - we're already capped then. Shock horror - quick ..
> wheres the press ? )))

There aren't many ISPs brave enough to point that out yet. Metronet
have their "capped" service (it's kind of capped, have a look at their
site) but I reckon they're exploiting a (bigger) niche (than many might
expect) quite nicely.

What isn't pretty is silly limits. It's quite reasonable to download a
few gigabytes in a day because, for most people, it's a one off thing.
Daily caps don't really help anyone and I think ISPs really should have
enough head room to cope with the sort of blips that can be caused by
downlaoding a few ISOs in a day.

>
>
>>>There's the not so greedy begger (to which category I probably fall
>>>into) who would not be overly disheartened by any limit, as he truely
>>>knows to himself that his usage is not that high consistantly.
>>>
>>>Then theres the "I want to be a tree" type of person who loves
>>>everyone and all the world, and feels that we should be conserving the
>>>ISPs network for the other subscribers.
>>
>>S'pose that's me :-)
>
>
> rotflmao
> --
> Andy Jenkins
> UK Broadband Usergroup : http://www.uk-bug.net

In article <3fcbbe12$0$52886$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Alexander Mann <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> What isn't pretty is silly limits. It's quite reasonable to download a
> few gigabytes in a day because, for most people, it's a one off thing.
> Daily caps don't really help anyone and I think ISPs really should have
> enough head room to cope with the sort of blips that can be caused by
> downlaoding a few ISOs in a day.

What we need is a technical solution, where every user is garanteed
a certain amount of bandwidth above that level then they just share a
pool of the remaining bandwidth. Any bandwidth a user is not using goes
into the pull, however if they need it they are garanteed their minimum.

I suppose that dropping the bandwidth of the most intensive customers
when and only when networks become conjested, upping the bandwidth
as soon as network conjestion reduces would be a practical way of
acheiving a sensible limit. Is this what they use?

I think the issue is not necessarily capping, but rather that the
networks are not designed to allow continuous 600kb (or whatever) streams
going to all users at the same time. It would be at best impractical
or horribly expensive to build a network that way. The important
question is, does your ISP have suitable network capacity to support
a reasonable number of users at a usefull sustained bit rate.

Pete

--
(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.petezilla.co.uk