This has become such a shit storm of paranoia.
you can go ahead and insert your foot in your mouth now....
Quote:
p2pnet.net News:- Canada's Shaw Cable says it's deliberately throttling BitTorrent downloads.
The admission comes in CBC technology columnist Tod Maffin's mp3 of an interview with Shaw Communications president Peter Bissonnette.
"We can identify the kinds of useage that we're seeing on our network and this is very dynamic, and so we will manage that dynamically," Bissonnette says, also stating:.
"If, for instance, we see a huge amount of Torrent kind of peer-to-peer traffic, we can actually allocate, you know, bandwidth to ensure that that carries on, but not at the expense of our email and web serving customers.
"One percent of the users can actually use up to 90% of the network.
"Just like you do sometimes when you have a huge, super highway. Sometimes you have to put signs saying Slow Down here, or Go Fast there, or Slow Traffic Keep to the Right."
But as Maffin remarks, not everyone believes Shaw is merely protecting what it sees as customers' best interests.
Some cynics claim Shaw is in fact trying to up-sell people a more expensive package with faster speeds to BT users.
"Either way, the issue isn't going to disappear," Maffin observes.
Believe it.
http://p2pnet.net/story/3207Quote:
I just dont understand why people dont upload, it doesn't completely fuck up your download speed as bad as people think. Just extreme paranoia again. I know I used to think that way, but now I get my upload bandwidth maxed out 24/7 all day long, and still download at crazy speeds (generally on other p2p).
I guarantee that if you found 20 other people on the same torrent, all without their uploads capped, you'd find that BT was just as good as ever.
you need to set your maximum global upload speed at 80-90% of your connections maximum upload speed in order to avoid the following. how about do some more research before you come here and try to preach:
Quote:
What is not generally well-known is that the upstream cap can also affect the downstream speed -- if the upstream is saturated by uploading (e.g., sending a large PowerPoint file to the boss, or running a Napster or other public service), the downstream will drop to about the same speed. This is due to a weakness in the basic TCP Internet protocol, not Cable or DSL per se, and not the service provider.
Cable Internet is more vulnerable to this problem than DSL. Unlike DSL, where each subscriber has a dedicated connection to the head-end (DSLAM), the Cable Internet upstream path to the head-end (CMTS) is shared by all subscribers on a given cable segment. If that upstream gets saturated, which might be caused by only a relatively few subscribers, downstream speeds take a big drop for all subscribers on that segment.
As an illustrative example, consider a DOCSIS cable segment with 4 upstream channels per downstream channel, and 1000 subscribers (a recommended maximum).
* The upstream channels can be anywhere from 160 Kbps (200 kHz QPSK) to 10 Mbps (3.2 MHz QAM 16), with 800 Khz QPSK perhaps the most common in practice, giving an upstream channel capacity of 640 Kbps.
* The downstream channel can be 27 Mbps (QAM 64) or 36 Mbps (QAM 256), with 27 Mbps (QAM 64) perhaps the most common in practice.
The aggregate upstream capacity of 4 channels would be about 2.5 Mbps, as compared to downstream capacity of 27 Mbps. If the upstream saturates, the downstream rate will drop to about the same speed, a dramatic slowdown of about 90% (2.5 Mbps as compared to 27 Mbps).
Even with cable modems capped to 128 Kbps upstream, 2.5 Mbps upstream capacity can handle only 20 (2.5 Mbps / 128 Kbps) simultaneously active modems before saturation. That's generally not a problem if cable modem usage is typically (1) infrequent, (2) downstream [e.g., web surfing], and (3) interactive [e.g., fetch-use]. The system can break down if those conditions are not met.
This makes it easier to see why certain Cable Internet providers condemn continuous use of upstream (e.g., running a popular public service) as "abuse" -- each such subscriber consumes capacity normally allocated for 1000 / 20 = 50 subscribers. Worse, there's a threshold effect: If the upstream is running at (say) 80% of capacity with typical subscribers, it takes only 4 (out of 1000) heavy upstream users at 128 Kbps to drive the upstream into saturation, thereby slowing downstream to a crawl for all subscribers on that segment. (Exact numbers, of course, depend on actual channel numbers and speeds.)