BE, is it true they are introducing traffic shaping and a fair usage policy?

DJMK4 · 18 Sep 2009 at 10:07

Iv heard rumours, but nothing official, is this true about BE introducing traffic shaping and a fair usage policy.

If it is then im going to find a way out. I signed up to Be Unlimited. not be unlimited *oh yeah with a fair usage policy*.

Why would they need too? surely there ghastly website is keeping the network capacity at bay?

Dup · 18 Sep 2009 at 11:25

The whole appeal of Be*s userbase is not having traffic shaping. There IS a fair usage policy, but you'd have to be a cronic downloader to ever be limited.

Where did you hear such rumours?

Sp00n · 18 Sep 2009 at 12:25

There has always been a FuP

gillywibble · 18 Sep 2009 at 13:31

I've not heard this rumour.

R.O.S.S.I · 18 Sep 2009 at 14:17

I'm sure there is something in their terms and conditions that would allow them to do this should it actually come into force.

Azuse05 · 18 Sep 2009 at 14:26

Here although it should be noted that there's no way in hell for us lot on Be* to use the networks full capacity, Be* is still a niche isp. The problem is a big corporation (O2) bought the network then piles on as many people as it can, O2 has literally gone from 2XXk users to 4XXk users in the past year, have they doubled the networks capacity along with it...?

Be* is still adding exchanges therefore still increasing capacity but eventually that will stop, although that's still a long way off eventually it will happen which is why they started asking people and getting a discussion going rather than just a system on people, like every other isp has done.

I suppose the real question is whether capacity will be reach before fttc reaches most of the population.

Berserker · 18 Sep 2009 at 18:09

24/7/365 serial downloading is always going to end up being unsustainable on a home connection (unless you pay the prices the likes of Zen charge). Some people don't see this, and they're the ones who scream blue murder should an ISP even dare to mention a FUP. Hellfire and brimstone on them if they ever dare to mention caps or traffic shaping.

So, I think it's sensible to have the discussion. The trick is getting the balance right - what is fair and what isn't? 50GB-100GB/month is fair to me (as that's what I use), but it might not be fair to other. 300GB isn't fair to me but it might be to others. So, where should this obviously arbitrary line be drawn, and how can that line be drawn in a way that is fair to everyone (outright banning P2P isn't fair, at least to me, for example).

fini · 18 Sep 2009 at 18:28

I agree with Berserker and the problem becomes even more complex when you start to consider high-def streaming services. Take a family of four - they each go and watch an episode of whatever on iplayer. At around 1.5GB each that's 6GB. If they do that every day then that's 180GB a month - call it 200GB when you include normal web browsing etc. Now what I've described is all legitimate use of the connection. So, 300GB suddenly doesn't sound too ridiculous. Perhaps the answer is to stop charging based on speed completely and start charging per GB. The problem with that, of course, is that all the heavy users would just move to a different ISP, which is effectively what happens now with FUPs and caps.

Rroff · 18 Sep 2009 at 18:49

Home connections aren't for 24x7 DLing and I know v. v. few people who do that, that aren't freeloading...

How I would calculate the fair useage amount personally is this... by providing a broadband speed for a period of the day representing home useage...

so by my definition thats 2Mbit/s through 5pm til 11pm daily... works out ~160gig a month. As the connection isn't designed for constant heavy useage anyway this should cover in most cases all reasonable useage with a reasonable allowance above that. Once someone goes above that figure then they should have the option of paying for additional useage at peak times or otherwise be throttled to 1Mbit during peak times.

When broadband speeds move on you can simply recalculate your useage allowance and it should still fit the needs of normal home users... without penalising the end user for the number of people connected to it.

Azuse05 · 18 Sep 2009 at 18:51

Ah, now the isps and bbc have been at it for a long time, and hd is only becoming more common as time passes. The idea of isps caching the iplayer is something that appeals to me, and probably the accountants as well. As in they host the iplayers (hd) programs on their own servers meaning it's not costing them an arm, leg and b*ll in bandwidth flowing onto their networks. Considering the amount of ever increasing traffic, it'd almost certainly be far cheaper than the bandwidth bills.

I know it wouldn't work for anything else, but i doubt anything bar youtube is more used in the uk now, and the bbcs aiming to have the iplayer on freesat. When that happens it'll only be used more, more hd etc. etc.

Rroff · 18 Sep 2009 at 18:53

There are systems for multicasting live streams and caching services like iplayer that can be built into ISP networks and work very well... but for some reason most ISPs have been resistant to implementing such features even tho it would save everyone a ton in bandwidth.

tolien · 18 Sep 2009 at 19:31

Most ISPs have been resistant to multicasting because, for the majority of ISPs (who use BT Wholesale), it doesn't save them any money. Multicast traffic is effectively unicast over BT Centrals to the end user.
The ones who could make any effective use of multicasting (without significant network redesign) are the LLUers and bandwidth's evidently cheap enough for them anyway.

It's about how much what you're paying buys and what the other users on the network are doing (i.e. you can subsidise the odd heavy user, but you need lots of really light users to balance it out). All the talk about iPlayer and how much you can shift legally isn't really relevant, other than it means the general trend of bandwidth consumption is upwards.

Azuse05 · 18 Sep 2009 at 20:35

Umm. It's relevant because it's the only traffic and llu isp (isn't that what be is?) can directly influence in a positive way for both the end user and the bean counters while knowing it's only going to be an increased saving as usage increases.

tolien · 18 Sep 2009 at 20:55

Uhh, the caching side might be relevant (though there's the cost of a giant iPlayer cache in the terabytes and peering is the cheap bit anyway) but the "I use iPlayer/Windows Update/WoW which are legal ergo my usage is fair" argument is not, which is what I was actually talking about...