cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

(Un)Fair Usage Management

N/A

(Un)Fair Usage Management

First off, I wasn't one of the 'heavy users' warned recently (well, not that I'm aware of anyway!) however I was wondering why so many measures are being brought in to restrict usage?

I thought that the traffic shaping on permiere accounts was meant to produce a fair service for all? But now heavy users are being penalised severely by a hard restriction on their service (dont use more that 50gb this month)

As traffic shaping is implemented, everyone gets a fair service as P2P is given less priority. Thats the way PN have 'sold it' to us Permiere punters. So what's wrong with allowing the file sharers and big downloaders to use the (otherwise unutilised) bandwidth after everyone else has had their fill of browsing and email?

To me it sounds like PN jumped on the "upgrade everyone to 2MB for free" bandwagon without investing in enough capacity. They're now trying to put off buying a bigger pipe by introducing an array of measures to cut usage under the false guise of ensuring all users get a "fair" service.

Whilst im aware that it's not feasable to have a pipe which allows everyone to have a full 2mbit/s (or 8mbit/s) 24/7, PlusNet should increase their capacity in line with demand, instead of restricting supply in line with capacity.

I havn't looked at the T&Cs and Fair Usage Guide in detail, but I believe that it goes along the lines of "you can use the service as much as you like, so long as you don't have a detrimental effect on other users". (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) So if traffic shaping ensures a fair service for all, why peanilise 'heavy' users?

Could someone from PlusNet comment on this?

As an aside, I for one can see no need for any of these measures - I've always found web browsing, email, and http/ftp downloads to be fast and responsive. If any other customers have found web/email severely slow in the past yet now fixed by these measures, I'd like to be corrected.

</rant>
8 REPLIES
N/A

(Un)Fair Usage Management

how many threads do we need, discussing the same things.

Surely the points raised have been discussed and addressed elsewhere.

Quote
So what's wrong with allowing the file sharers and big downloaders to use the (otherwise unutilised) bandwidth after everyone else has had their fill of browsing and email?


hence the statement. keep your downloads to off peak and less than the limits outlined and all will be fine.
N/A

(Un)Fair Usage Management

Mark, I think you missed my point...

Traffic shaping supposedly ensures a fair service for all. In which case everyone can *try* to download as much as they like whenever they like, as the shaping will take care of fairness.

So we should be subjected to *either* traffic shaping *or* hard limits (150GB/month on peak), not both.
willhome
Grafter
Posts: 272
Registered: 06-08-2007

(Un)Fair Usage Management

becuase ppl on premier are taking the piss they trying to protect most users but at same time have to make the heavy users (0.1%) annoyed.

if i was plus net and same customers did heavy usage for like 6months stranight they i would cut them off revoke there contract. as they will lost only as said less then 0.1% but same time improve the broadband a hellll of a lot making others wanting to join
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

(Un)Fair Usage Management

Quote
Traffic shaping supposedly ensures a fair service for all. In which case everyone can *try* to download as much as they like whenever they like, as the shaping will take care of fairness.


That's not how it works. The traffic shaping (which I STILL disagree with) is there to ensure that it is still possibly to use sensitive applications such as VOIP even when the available bandwidth is maxed out.
N/A

(Un)Fair Usage Management

Quote
becuase ppl on premier are taking the [censored] they trying to protect most users but at same time have to make the heavy users (0.1%) annoyed.

Protect most users from what? If no one is using a chunk of bandwidth, why can't a heavy user use it to P2P download? Then as soon as someone else wants to check their email or do whatever higher priority task, the traffic shaping system takes away some of the spare bandwith from the P2Per.


Quote
That's not how it works.

How do you know? PN haven't released any details about the shaping system, and won't do until the end of August at the very earliest (http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31154&start=15). If I've missed a post which does give details, could you link to it?
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

(Un)Fair Usage Management

I doubt that you have missed it. It has been said a few times by PN staff in the traffic shaping thread.

The traffic shaping is simply a form of data contention where p2p is contended against all other p2p at peak times (not sure it works quite how they think it does, but that's what they are doing). As such, the priority of p2p packets on the network are reduced in priority compared to other packets when p2p reaches a critical percentage of the total availiable bandwidth, and thus allowing other "more important" packets to pass through the network in normal time. General browsing and normal downloading is not affected. If the bandwidth is availiable, then all packets (both p2p and others) pass through the network unhindered. At least, that's the PN official line, as given repeatedly on the forums in far fewer and simpler terms.

Essentially, it's a little like the priority system in the Windows Task Manager manages the available CPU cycles for each given application. an application set "above normal" get's more cpu time when it needs it than all those set at "normal". setting an application to "below normal" gives it all the CPU time it wants, but only on the provision that a "normal" application isn't requesting that same time. The only difference is that PN's system allows them (apparently) to set a percentage of resources beyond which certain types of traffic can grow no larger. Effectively, p2p traffic has been set to "below normal".

Now, I don't believe it is acctually working like this, though I do believe that it is how it is supposed to be working. I also believe that if it is indeed working as intended, then it is having unexpected side-effects across the network (just like when you set something to high priority in taskman and the whole computer slows down).

However, the official line is that PN have set the percentage total of allowed p2p bandwidth at something just less of the total that was available to p2p before hand (given the quotes of 5-7 KB/s slower, one would assume that they are talking about 90-95%).

this can be reasonably extrapolated from D Thomlinsons comments in the first post, and Bbrowns comments in the sixth post at http://portal.plus.net/central/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31074&post=0
willhome
Grafter
Posts: 272
Registered: 06-08-2007

(Un)Fair Usage Management

Quote
Quote
becuase ppl on premier are taking the [censored] they trying to protect most users but at same time have to make the heavy users (0.1%) annoyed.

Protect most users from what? If no one is using a chunk of bandwidth, why can't a heavy user use it to P2P download? Then as soon as someone else wants to check their email or do whatever higher priority task, the traffic shaping system takes away some of the spare bandwith from the P2Per.


i fink i saw somewere it costs plus net 100pound if a user downloads around 150gb in peak times
crimsone
Grafter
Posts: 317
Registered: 15-08-2007

(Un)Fair Usage Management

while that's all well and good (and there is a reason that your suggestion isnt taking into account the full picture), this thread is fast moving on to matters toroughly discussed in another thread already running.