Eclipse Question

davyr · 20 May 2006 at 22:26

I am getting 29kb/s down and 48kb/s up,phoned them again this morning to complain and they said do 5 bt speed tests and send the results in but my speedtests are ok on normal internet traffic it is just p2p that it is bad,This is my 11th day and this afternoon my speeds shot up to 550kb/s but now it is back down,i was better off with f2s.I am getting really angry now and fed up,i am close to joining Nildram but i do not know if they are having the same problems any help would be appreciated.

The Deuce · 21 May 2006 at 09:52

have a look on the adslguide forums, eclipse are been slated by most. havent checked on nildram, but i will do

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/19/bt_max/

norm · 21 May 2006 at 10:28

Bit-torrent traffic should be throttled.

From an ISPs perspective it'll put a lot of load onto the routers with so many simultaneous connections to users across the globe (also equals raised peering costs), and the fact it's very bandwidth intensive, not just download but upload too.

ANDARIAL · 21 May 2006 at 11:18

norm said:
Bit-torrent traffic should be throttled.

From an ISPs perspective it'll put a lot of load onto the routers with so many simultaneous connections to users across the globe (also equals raised peering costs), and the fact it's very bandwidth intensive, not just download but upload too.

probally quite true....but why are the isps selling/providing 8 mbs lines??i can see no advantage in a 1meg line to a 3 meg line for surfing(unless the page has LOTS of jpegs

)
the only reason i chose eclipse in the first place was for unrestricted p2p.ok after i upgraded to max i was prepared for a cap....OFF PEAK ...but they have implemented a cap/shaping 24/7(it appears that way to me)
will def be migrating v soon.just have to decide which isp will fulfill my needs

as i said i can accept a cap but not 24/7 :mad:

tolien · 21 May 2006 at 11:20

norm said:
From an ISPs perspective it'll put a lot of load onto the routers with so many simultaneous connections to users across the globe (also equals raised peering costs), and the fact it's very bandwidth intensive, not just download but upload too.

Number of connections won't be affected one jot by all the prioritisation kit.

davyr · 21 May 2006 at 13:17

Nobody needs an 8meg connection speed unless you are downloading torrents like me or are watching the new broadband t.v..For browsing the internet you could still browse effectively with a 1meg connection.

ANDARIAL · 21 May 2006 at 15:29

davyr said:
Nobody needs an 8meg connection speed unless you are downloading torrents like me or are watching the new broadband t.v..For browsing the internet you could still browse effectively with a 1meg connection.

quoted for truth mate

NickK · 21 May 2006 at 15:36

I've just, today, regraded from flex1000 -> Evo option1.

To be honest, the only big downloads I see are (a) patches, (b) demos and (c) trailers.

It will be interesting to see if online games (BF2) lag increases due to prioritisation.

norm · 21 May 2006 at 15:52

tolien said:
Number of connections won't be affected one jot by all the prioritisation kit.

No but Bit-Torrent undoubtedly puts more work on the routers compared to a simple FTP/NNTP/HTTP/VoIP connection, and the latter is very sensitive to dropped packets.

norm · 21 May 2006 at 15:52

tolien · 21 May 2006 at 16:01

norm said:
No but Bit-Torrent undoubtedly puts more work on the routers compared to a simple FTP/NNTP/HTTP/VoIP connection

Quite possibly, but traffic shaping still doesn't help load as a result of number of connections, and if the kit can't handle routing up to the maximum capacity that's connected to it someone screwed up when they were buying it...

and the latter is very sensitive to dropped packets.

And most of that occurs as a result of congestion, not overloaded routers.

Nobody needs an 8meg connection speed unless you are downloading torrents like me or are watching the new broadband t.v..For browsing the internet you could still browse effectively with a 1meg connection.

Debatable. There's a considerable segment of light users who do see an advantage of the speed, but don't need to be maxing out for large chunks of the time.