My ISP has started Traffic Shaping and giving their own FTP and premium Services priority over Gaming and P2P services. At the end of the day your paying them the monthly fee. You should be able to visit what websites you want without penalty. We could be seeing dark times for the internet.
DELETED_23244
- Thread starter DELETED_23244
- Start date
It's a lot different in the UK, with ISPs getting bent over at £1.2M a year for a 622Mbps Central from BT to them, and most of the traffic shaping aimed at giving a reasonable service to the majority while preventing the majority saturating everything with Dodgy.Goat.Pr0n.torrent.
Centrals don't apply to the LLU providers and NTL/Telewest, but it's the same idea - limited expensive resource, more than enough users to max it out.
Similar standpoint applies to prioritising an ISPs own usenet/FTP/stuff, if they're hosted locally they aren't paying for transit.
Nowt stopping you migrating either, versus big chunks only serviced (chortle) by one provider in the US.
Centrals don't apply to the LLU providers and NTL/Telewest, but it's the same idea - limited expensive resource, more than enough users to max it out.
Similar standpoint applies to prioritising an ISPs own usenet/FTP/stuff, if they're hosted locally they aren't paying for transit.
Nowt stopping you migrating either, versus big chunks only serviced (chortle) by one provider in the US.
Last edited:
I think you guys are missing the point - this isnt about whether an individual ISP controls the performance/throughput of its subscribers - thats a matter between the two parties involved.
This is about whether a network provider, in the process of transitioning a given packet from network A to network B, should base the quality of that transistion on the data that packet represents.
Its a different proposition, and one with far reaching consequences.
This is about whether a network provider, in the process of transitioning a given packet from network A to network B, should base the quality of that transistion on the data that packet represents.
Its a different proposition, and one with far reaching consequences.
It's pure greed and control at the heart of it, they want to basically dictate what people can and can't access or interfere with performance levels, they hope to get the likes of Google and others to pay twice for their connection, at the moment its how it should be where everything is fair use, you pay your ISP for access to the net and server hosts and companies pay someone as well but now these greedy telecoms want to charge them and probably their users for the privilege to access their sites, pathetic.
Imagine paying to phone someone and them having to pay to receive the call as well.
Imagine paying to phone someone and them having to pay to receive the call as well.
Last edited:
My post was mostly directed at fatmas, but meh.
Which is exactly what traffic shaping is (and is mostly what I was talking about, albeit for a different reason)?
It's hardly any different to the Cogent depeering joy that's been going on. Cogent take a dislike to you, you disappear off the internet.
Is already, to some extent, what's happening here - an example, Plusnet prioritise their own VoIP app over everyone else's.
The consequences are essentially what you make of it.
Visage said:
Which is exactly what traffic shaping is (and is mostly what I was talking about, albeit for a different reason)?
It's hardly any different to the Cogent depeering joy that's been going on. Cogent take a dislike to you, you disappear off the internet.
The BBC said:
Is already, to some extent, what's happening here - an example, Plusnet prioritise their own VoIP app over everyone else's.
The consequences are essentially what you make of it.
My employers will quite happily sell you a ADSL connection, with a 1:1 ratio, no throttling, and we'll guarantee that the Virtual Path to your local exchange isn't shared. But they'll charge you a small fortune for it.
you get want you pay for. pay peanuts expect to have to share.
you get want you pay for. pay peanuts expect to have to share.