Traffic Shaping Poll: Good or Bad?

[FruitChute]

You're the customer. Maybe this poll can decide if traffic shaping stays or goes?

By voting that traffic shaping is good you are stating:

a) You don't mind if you don't get what you pay for

b) You're not aware that it's just a means to cram more users onto a network and maintain some sort of sporadic like stability while spending less money. With bonus packet loss. Now with 5% more packet loss.

Even if you just browse and check email. Don't be fooled into thinking traffic shaping is your friend because it limits other users download speed to provide you with stable browsing and email checking. No, no, no...

The means are ethically wrong.

What one set of users does with the lines they paid for should not effect another set of users WITHOUT TRAFFIC SHAPING APPLIED.

Okay, to the poll......

[Drefsab]

I actually voted for it be good thing, the reason I said this was that if the net with f2s would be as slow as it is between 1am and 6am when the shaping is off then Im damned glad its not ALWAYS like that. Though thats shaping in general what f2s are doing and calling shaping at the moment is damned well not acceptable if you ask me as well.

[JohhnyJ]

So you should have voted bad then?

[keith_thfc]

Originally Posted by Drefsab

I actually voted for it be good thing.

Looks like I'll know who to blame if Zen start traffic shaping us......

[JohhnyJ]

Thats a bad sign, so the message is dont come running to Zen then?

[Drefsab]

lol nothing like that I hate shaping but I also know my net is unusable when the shaping is off and as for zen no shaping there god damn it :P how many times do we have to tell people our core networks didnt even know what the traffic shaping kit was when someone on AG posted saying we had it. The fact he didnt even know what it was and had to look it up should speak volumes about the ammount to time we have spent investigating traffic shaping :P

[Karl Prince]

I voted for it as a good thing, as always these things have caveats.

Traffic shaping can be used (and abused) and whoever gets shaped will always complain.

Personally I want web browsing (especially https) to have first priority, other people will have other priorities.

For the lighter users, whom are paying subs from the same tarriff after all (maybe a few quid less for limited bandwidth I know) shaping should help maintain their service on what is designed to be a contended service.

I don't disagree there are general speed issues for many users, shaping is used to share bandwidth in (potentially) contended systems. I have used shaping devices for several years, they are not cheap, but they are much cheaper than unlimited bandwidth.

Personally I would like a see a return of the cap on my tarriff, and that (cap aggressively shaped and) managed, it would be interesting to see if that improved overall issues. Maybe this could be the subject of a future poll?

With LLU things are inevitably more complicated, and LLU users have many more problems than just shaping

Remember this is MY opinion, and not an invite for flaming

I think real-time gaming should get highest priority.

But I think the only really "fair" way to do it is if slower packets cost less. If f2s/pipex was so worried about user experience they'd provide a decent web proxy.

The thing is I expect this is just cost saving, nothing more. it allows them to squeeze a few more users on before they have to upgrade their network. Sure, it might also discourage large file sharers, giving a bit more breathing space. But what happens when the file sharers are gone and the network still gets conjested? Will they upgrade the network then or will they find some other crap excuse for not doing so?

[FruitChute]

Originally Posted by Drefsab

I actually voted for it be good thing, the reason I said this was that if the net with f2s would be as slow as it is between 1am and 6am when the shaping is off then Im damned glad its not ALWAYS like that.

That's too vague and missing the ultimate point. Answer these:

a)Why should customers not get what they pay for?

b)Why should one set of customers use effect another customers?

The answers are at the bottom in small print, make sure you don't look or cover them up first.

You're glad speeds are not as slow as they are 1am to 6am all the time? I'm sure everybody else who has this same experience is too.

The answer is not to restrict peoples products they bought.

The answer is fork out for another pipe or three.















Answers:
a) Money
b) Money

[Drefsab]

Oh I definatly agree that its not fair and not acceptable for myself and other users. I would definatly have prefered f2s to use caps where needed, at least untill they can sort the issue but then im sure theres plenty of people that wouldnt like caps ether. Ether way I know im moving to a line from work when I move, I could get f2s up there to but I wouldnt even consider getting another f2s line any more with these problems and shaping in place.

[FruitChute]

Originally Posted by Karl Prince

stuff

What should and shouldn't get so called 'priority' is a really hilarious debate all of it's own. I'll choose to skip it here.

That aside you are missing the point:

The sole reason there is traffic shaping is to cram more users into the network without spending any money.

If anybody can give me another reason I'm all ears.

With an isp with a growing customer base it will come to a point where you can't deliver the advertised products bandwidth.

This leaves the isp with 3 options.

a) you stop taking more customers before the above happens
b) you buy another pipe and let the customers keep rolling in
c) you start traffic shaping and let the customers keep rolling in

It's only going to get worse. It can't go the other way until b) happens.

More users are coming in all the time. We see a very small cross section of F2S customers here.

More users, same network, clogged, shaped, priority, tango, delta, bull****.

On a side note the thread title still reads 'The Official' for me even though it was mod edited. Must be some caching pipex have started utilising.

Cache shaping! It's the next big thing.

[John R]

For a start its NOT shaping its PRIORITIZING.

If you are a light user then its a good thing as they are not going to be hit by any slowing down of what they do.
Gamers will also approve as they should see better pings, or at least no increase.
The only users who will complain are the p2p mob who aren't the hard core of heavy users (who won't use p2p anyway), as the hard core know and expect to see slowdowns and won't complain.. But the middle ground mob don't like it because they think they have been targeted as abusers of the network.

Shaping is not about cramming more users onto the network... BT limit the number of sessions on each pipe and it cannot be increased. +net tried a crafty move by forcing sessions to be dropped on the BB+ product after 30 Min's of inactivity in the hope of more users per pipe, but that failed as all you need to do is poll email to overcome it.

[davidmcnaught16]

I'm not an expert, but from what I gather, prioritizing can offer a better user experience for the average customer.

If prioritizing means that time sensitive, low bandwidth traffic (Such as gaming and VOIP) gets priority and works reliably at the price of a 2-3% reduction in the speed of file downloads/ P2P / streaming / uploads, then I think it's a great idea. If a download takes 103 minutes instead of 100, I won't be too bothered. If however, my voip keeps breaking up and I get lag on games, I will be very annoyed.

I could be wrong about exactly how traffic prioritizing/shaping works, but from what I can see, it could provide a better web experience for most people (moreso as VOIP increases) and an almost un-noticeable decrease in the spead of other activities.

It would be great to see some proper figures showing what prioritizing would do in terms of improving time sensitive apps and slowing down downloads etc so that we can make informed oppinions about it. Anyone know any good articles?

[Karl Prince]

Originally Posted by FruitChute

On a side note the thread title still reads 'The Official' for me even though it was mod edited. Must be some caching pipex have started utilising.

My mistake, only editied the first post title, not the thread title (stored separately, though entered as one)

[Retribution]

The problem is tho, for me at least, it aint just P2P thats strangled. ( I dont, and have in fact NEVER used ANY form of P2P or Newsgroups) Its everything thats borked, including Email, Web Surfing, FTP ect.
The whole thing is throttled, strangled, borked, useless or whatever you wanna call it, as it all means essentially the same thing.
The only possible explanation with that (Network problems aside), is somebody somewhere is trying to make the existing bandwidth go further, surely?

[enaptt]

i voted no because they introduced something i didnt sign up for.

if i complain my account just gets "marked" as a nuisance customer, its easier not only to move, but if enough people move and cite failure to disclose and no notification as the reason then eventually isps will stop messing us about.

[Bothered1]

SIMPLY its bad because its not what i paid for

WHEN will i get (paid for upfront)
speeds of 512kb pure IP back (capacity N/A - as apposed to uncapped maybe someone can tell me the difference too)

Yes ive read the stuff but can anyone actually just give a answer to this....if some staff can not..then i guess i am paying for a service i am not getting and i will be recording the download speeds over the next month

(its a shame as i guess some people at f2s are now towing the corporate line after being such a not for profit, independant dare i say leftish type organizatoin and now it appears to be full on capitalistic right...all beliefs out the window for what.....)those that stay can see the green of promotion...three bags full

[FruitChute]

Originally Posted by John R

For a start its NOT shaping its PRIORITIZING.

If you are a light user then its a good thing as they are not going to be hit by any slowing down of what they do.
Gamers will also approve as they should see better pings, or at least no increase.
The only users who will complain are the p2p mob who aren't the hard core of heavy users (who won't use p2p anyway), as the hard core know and expect to see slowdowns and won't complain.. But the middle ground mob don't like it because they think they have been targeted as abusers of the network.

Shaping is not about cramming more users onto the network... BT limit the number of sessions on each pipe and it cannot be increased. +net tried a crafty move by forcing sessions to be dropped on the BB+ product after 30 Min's of inactivity in the hope of more users per pipe, but that failed as all you need to do is poll email to overcome it.

Okay prioritising. Hey, I'm calling F2S Pipex now. I'm crazy, I even run with scissors.

Prioritising sounds worse so I'm cool with that.

Are you saying it's physically impossible to give everybody the product they paid for?

If so this is false advertising. It's as simple as that.

When I use the internet, at whatever time I wish to hop on it, I want to see 56k down. If that's streaming something, viewing web pages, using p2p, or WHATEVER.

Why? Because it's what I paid for. A 512k line*, no caps, no ports blocked, and no packets being dropped into the sea via a bleeding traffic shaping kit.

*Not a completely variable speed line.

[davidmcnaught16]

Services do now often say 'up to' 2Mb, or 8Mb, which makes the marketing a bit less misleading.

It would be great to have a 'no less than' speed as well as an 'up to' so that you can pay for a guaranteed minimum speed, e.g. Up to 8Mbps and no less than 512Kbps (I'm currently getting 20k downloads on my up to 8Mb line - seriously pooey).

I don't think I'm getting at all ripped off with prioritising though; if my ISP adds features that improve my web experience (Assuming it will), I'm all for it - they don't need my permission. But I'm much more concerned about paying for an up to 8Mb connection and getting less than 512k speeds.

Also, in reference to Bothered1's comment - I would say F2S are quite far-left; whatever money you have, whatever connection speed you choose - you all get crappy slow speeds! Equality for all! Yay! If they were savvy capitalists, they'd care more about their customers & providing a good and worthwhile service for their own image and long term success.

[FruitChute]

Originally Posted by davidmcnaught16

Services do now often say 'up to' 2Mb, or 8Mb, which makes the marketing a bit less misleading.

It would be great to have a 'no less than' speed as well as an 'up to' so that you can pay for a guaranteed minimum speed, e.g. Up to 8Mbps and no less than 512Kbps (I'm currently getting 20k downloads on my up to 8Mb line - seriously pooey).

I don't think I'm getting at all ripped off with prioritising though; if my ISP adds features that improve my web experience (Assuming it will), I'm all for it - they don't need my permission. But I'm much more concerned about paying for an up to 8Mb connection and getting less than 512k speeds.

It came across to me, a slightly frequent internet user, as the 'up to' speed meant and only meant 'what your physical line is capable of'.

So if your line can hold a 2meg connection then it will be 2meg.

The current lines should be advertised as "anywhere from X kbps to X kbps, subject to change without notice"

And in the fine print "should you wish to know exactly what your line is capable of at what time, please take a guess as we provide no support on this issue."

[Mr.Burgundy]

neither "prioritising" or "shaping" have anything to do with improving the end user experience, they are always and 100% only about maximising profits, the only thing that either of these measures does, is to significanyly increase the amount of users an ISP can cram into a pipe... it really is as simple as that!!

We live in an ever more commercial world, and at the moment everyone is scrambling for a bigger piece of the pie, most users are barely savvy enough to send emails and surf, yet alone do speed tests, so even if they did realise something was amiss they wouldn't know better when an ever so helpful tech support says "there are currnetly no known speed issues".

[FruitChute]

Originally Posted by Mr.Burgundy

most users are barely savvy enough to send emails and surf, yet alone do speed tests, so even if they did realise something was amiss they wouldn't know better when an ever so helpful tech support says "there are currnetly no known speed issues".

Yep. And unfortunately this accounts for, guestimate, 90% of users.

The only percent Pipex care about.

I've just voted "good", because I don't believe traffic management is bad. Incompetent or unnecessary "shaping" is bad. But prioritising and management is inherent in the whole concept of the internet, in all its mechanisms, protocols, hardware and software, in every server and every node.

I signed up for a connection to the internet. I'd like a connection that works as well as a private permanently connected line direct to whoever I want to communicate with; but I know I'm not going to get that. So I want something that gets as close as possible, for as much of the time as possible. If traffic shaping helps me get that, that's great. If traffic shaping penalises me and makes my service worse, then I'm annoyed.

On balance, I seem to be benefitting more often than I'm suffering.

JW
Edinburgh

[John R]

Originally Posted by FruitChute

Why? Because it's what I paid for. A 512k line*, no caps, no ports blocked, and no packets being dropped into the sea via a bleeding traffic shaping kit.

*Not a completely variable speed line.

Sadly you DID NOT sign up for the above..... You signed up for a line that is contended 50-1 by BT.... So in therory you have been beating the system by getting max speeds on your line.
Is there a Cap ? No
Are ports blocked ? No
Packets being lost well that could be many things.....

[FruitChute]

Originally Posted by John R

Sadly you DID NOT sign up for the above..... You signed up for a line that is contended 50-1 by BT.... So in therory you have been beating the system by getting max speeds on your line.
Is there a Cap ? No
Are ports blocked ? No
Packets being lost well that could be many things.....

It's funny how I have never seen a thread complaining about contention ratios effecting peoples speed.

Actually I have never seen a single post complaining about contention ratios screwing people over on speed.

I'm not arguing that it ultimately doesn't of course. (and I'm sure there's a post or two that could be dug up about people complaining about it)

But it's just never been an issue.

And it certainly hasn't taken over 90% of the broadband forum.

When I signed up to broadband I was clueless as to what download speed I could expect given the package I bought. After coming here the first response to my questions was "about 56k".

That is the exact speed I got, all the time, 24-7, regardless of what software I used.

Until now.