TorrentFreak

162 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 » Show All

76 Mar 21, 2006 at 20:00 by HJH (bestmasterchief)

Hi all.
I have just downloaded torrent 1.5 and it doesn’t seem to be working for me (I think I might have it set up wrong) im on plusnet uk and I got a 2mb ADSL connection so could anyone tell me what I need ticked in preferences.

77 Mar 21, 2006 at 22:32 by Ernesto

Hi, please post your speed related problems here..

http://www.btlist.com/categories.php

thanks

78 Apr 01, 2006 at 16:08 by Stryder

Hey ISP_Bob

— QUIT BITCHING AND GO WORK FOR ROGERS ALREADY!! I’m really not surprized that you own a “Small” ISP …. I`d say with the way you F**K your customers over — it`s gonna get even smaller.

That “corvette“ comparison is the lamest excuse i have ever heard. by that comparison you`d have cops pulling people over for doing 20 kph on a highway! Cause god knows, no one ever reaches the `Advertised speed limit` on broadband….

And BTW… Did you ever for one second think of ADVERTIZING your bandwidth restrictions and policies??? — What`s that? NO??? Oh yeah that`s because if you actually went out and told people what they`d be getting…. NO ONE WOULD SIGN UP!

79 Apr 01, 2006 at 21:22 by Notaclue

Quote. By Torrentfreak » Australian ISP’s wont throttle Bittorrent traffic on 02.20.06 5:50 pm

[…] Good news for the Australian Bittorrent fans. Three of Australia’s largest internet providers say they are not limiting Bittorrent traffic on their networks (like others do) and have no immediate plans to impose restrictions on the Bittorrent and other p2p traffic. […]

I am on 2 way satellite with Australia’s second biggest ISP, and they block p-p! They openly state in their AUP that p-p is not allowed, and they blocked it, until I discovered BitComet. BitComet works if there is adequate seeders

80 Apr 06, 2006 at 17:14 by bill

I’m a network engineer for an ISP. We currently restrict P2P applications to 512kbps for all users. And for good reason. P2P applications can cripple a network, they’re like leaches. They consume all available bandwidth for endless periods of time. What I think will eventually happen is users will start having to pay for transfer. No more unlimited connections, You’ll get a set data transfer limit for the month and if you go over your limits you pay more per byte. They already do such things in Canadian and other oversee’s markets.

Just because you pay 49.99 for a 1.5-3.0mbps connection doesn’t mean your entitled to use whatever protocols you wish on your ISP’s network without them provisioning it to make the network experience good for all users involved. If you want truely unrestricted internet, for the bandwidth advertised, you need to buy a leased line from an ILEC/CLEC. I guarentee the ISP’s will figure out a way to limit P2P use and since they own the network, it is up to them to decide what traffic gets priority for their customers. When one protocol consumes 75% of your bandwidth for hours on end, it inhibits all other protocols running on your network..

klaatu, you don’t seem to understand business very well. There is a lot more overhead to running an ISP than buying and reselling bandwidth. It’s not just simply recouping your bandwidth costs each month, hell I get each 1mb for a little under 200$/month on a fiber MPLS network 1 hop from level3. If I made profits off of everything after that I’d be bloody effin rich. You also have equipment, employees, leases, etc to pay for.

Throwing more bandwidth at P2P is like feeding a seagul a peice of bread. Once you feed one all their buddies come a long and eat your whole loaf of bread. The more bandwidth available, the more that is consumed by P2P. Unless you shape the bandwidth accordingly. Every ISP does this, or should I say successful ISP. It’s just a matter of to what extent they take it.

You have to remember there are two sides to everything. The ISP’s aren’t out to make your life miserable, they’re just looking out for the performance of their networks.

Anyway that’s my 2 cents.

81 Apr 06, 2006 at 17:32 by Ernesto

Read this

82 Apr 06, 2006 at 18:47 by bill

Ernesto,

Yeah and if your Ma Bell or another major ILEC, you have OCxxx lines that support tons of throughput. When your a smaller ISP with a 10mbps backhaul, it can easily be overcome by such protocols. Your post just shows your ignorance to the issue.

83 Apr 08, 2006 at 04:45 by iNET

As is usual with life, everyone sees things from there own perspective. That’s not a slam against anyone, or anyone’s point of view - it’s just a fact.

I’m an ISP as well, and the fact is, P2P is (from my point of view) a plague - a cancer, that will consume all the bandwidth that I can provide. It’s an insatiable appetite.

The Corvette example was maybe off base, the way we explain it to our customers is like an ‘$5.99 all you can eat buffet’. If you pay your $6, and eat a reasonable amount, no problem. That’s what it’s for. Some customer’s have big appetites, and some have small appetites, and in the end, it’s all supposed to average out. No problem. :)

Where this falls apart with internet usage is that 10% of your users belly up to the salad bar, pay their $6 and then eat 1000 lbs of food. It’s not that the restaurant is mean or evil or stupid, but that’s just not a sustainable business model. If you were the business owner, you’d have an ‘acceptable use policy’ for your All-you-can-eat-buffet, and that’s really no different that what the ISP’s are trying to do.

Where I’m located, T1’s are $1760 per month. We certainly have users who simply can’t understand / believe / fathom that we need to limit their bandwidth in any way, shape or form. However, MOST users also want our network to be fast and responsive, and frankly, if I allow that 10% of users to use up 90% of my network resources - then I’m not doing my job for the other 90% of paying customers that want good, reliable service.

Certainly, if it was just a matter of wiggling my nose and magically adding more bandwidth from upstream, all ISP’s would do it. The fact it, for me to add another T1 is a major expense, and as long as there is the perception that little Johnny should be able to pay his $35 and download at 2Mbs 24 x 7 - that’s a problematic business plan. I understand we’ve all been trained to think that we should get everything for free - but as long as business’s have to pay for their bandwidth costs (or their food costs), they are going to be watching their customers for over-use.

For what it’s worth, we’re clear with our customers on signup - no Server Privileges. We certainly loose some customers, but the ones we have (mostly) understand that we have a finite amount of resources and that we’re wanting to make the whole network as fast and good as we can for all users.

84 Apr 11, 2006 at 21:29 by C-Man

Traffic shaping is not good. If you pay for an internet connection, that’s what you should get from your ISP — an internet connection. Not a connection that will let you browse the web and check email, but little else. If an ISP has issues with the amount of data a customer is transferring, then the ISP needs to address that issue with that customer, and not restrict every user in one class of traffic.

It’s akin to the phone company trying to prioritize phone traffic – e.g., telling you that you can’t call and chat with your friend down the street because Joe Blow has a “better” use for those network resources (say, calling to order something from the phone company).

The ISPs need to keep their hands off content for more than just this reason. If the ISPs can and will throttle bandwidth based on protocol, how can they disclaim any liability for the content travelling through their pipes? If you open the pipe to see what is going through you take on a responsibility for that traffic - and ISPs may start to find themselves being held responsible for their customers conduct.

85 Apr 12, 2006 at 22:59 by bill

C-Man:

Identifing traffic based on ports and packet headers and then applying policy’s to those connections is hardly opening up each packet and examining the payload. And there is no way you could prove that in the courts if it had ever come to that. You’d be backed by the manufacturers that make such network applications to manage bandwidth (believe it or not it’s a pretty big market). Cisco, Allot, Nortel, etc all have means of identifing traffic and priortizing it. It’s called QoS (Quality of Service)! The ISP owns the network and they decide what travels on that network and at what speed..

It’s like me telling you that you can’t build a pool in your back yard. I don’t have a stake in your property or a lean, therefore I have no right to say what you can or can not build on what is yours. The same principal applies when you own a network. You have to make descions on what is legitimate traffic and what is not. Legitimate traffic will always get priority, (VoIP, HTTP, IPSEC/VPN, and other real time protocols). SMTP, POP3, P2P, they all get the lowest priority on my network, because they are non-timesensitive, or are considered illegitament traffic.

Here’s a prime example, a satellite internet provider has very limited upstreme bandwidth available to them. This is a limitation of the technology, no fault of the ISP. If they were to let their users connect to the internet unprovisioned, then all users internet connections would suffer. They would be unable to send DNS requests, a very legitment type of traffic, to resolve domain names. Thus giving that user a Page Cannot be Displayed error. All because one user was saturating the upstreme with P2P or some other bandwidth hungry application.

When you purchase a connection from an ISP, read the disclaimer. No where in there does it say you are guarenteed bandwidth. Unless of course you have a leased line, which even then probably has some legal out for the ISP in case of some network failure, act of God, what have you.

The ISP is nothing more than a bandwidth reseller, that also provides additional services such as email, content filtering, webspace, etc. To maximize profits, they sell as many users as they can on a certain connection. Once that connection is saturated, and by saturated I mean bandwidth utilization is sustained in the 95th percentile for days on end, then they purchase more bandwidth.

If we were to guarentee say 1.5mbps to each and every user, then we’d have to purchase a T1 for EVERY user we had. T1’s run from 300-2000$/month depending on the market and location. Those expenses would then be passed on to you, the consumer.. So would you rather pay 39.99/month or 300/month for that beloved internet connection?

86 Apr 13, 2006 at 09:39 by Tsang

Well… I like utorrent just because its nicer, doesn’t feel as laggy. I do have 1gb ram but.. bittorrent slowed my ass down. After learning that Rogers was dicking around I switched it up. I never used torrents because i once waited a week to download something menial 700mb. Like avg. 5-15k/sec. I just downloaded at 120k/sec and that sped up immediately after i started up the encryption up again. It’s like instant gratification.

87 Apr 16, 2006 at 01:15 by stevenm

Utorrent is the best .. my isp pipex where throttling my ports my best speed on 2mb was 10k for downloads on bit tornado and bitcomet .. i decided to try utorrent with the encryption now im back to getting 200k.. ahh the relief.

88 Apr 17, 2006 at 20:15 by pipexsucks

This is a netwide plot to destor all p2p traffic. PIPEX a major UK iSP just capped all P2p (inc bittorrent) to 20Kbps on all accounts 24/7. If you know of any other ISP involved in traffic shaping let me know at pipexsucks.blogspot.com

89 Apr 19, 2006 at 16:18 by ted

its happening to me here in Victoria too…..i noticed winmx has slowed down alot…..i’m with SHAW and do believe they are ripping off there customers.

90 Apr 20, 2006 at 19:27 by Jig

I’m with Rogers and in downtown toronto. I have yet to find a torrent client to get around the problem. I tried bittorrent and BitComet with encryption and it didn’t do jack… I heard that France resently legalized p2p though…

91 Apr 20, 2006 at 20:36 by Ernesto

Jig, take a look at this post
http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-encrypt-bittorrent-traffic/

92 Apr 23, 2006 at 06:39 by Jared

Works for now…

93 May 13, 2006 at 13:59 by wesley

hey guys im new to this whole torrent thing and it seems that rogers has all the port codes to down load stuff if any one has a bell code that i can use on utorrent.com that would be greatfull other wise like every one else im am gonna switch over to bell take care all….

94 May 24, 2006 at 16:39 by GThiz

Uhm, why the fuck isn’t the encryption doing ANYTHING for me anymore?
Did rogers find some way to fuck us again?
I hate rogers and I’d switch ISP’s but I have a feeling I’ll just get throttled by any ISP anymore.

95 Jun 09, 2006 at 23:44 by Corey

Encryption in the protocol does make sense though, it’s not as “pretty” as tunnel it trough VPN or SSH, but it’s more user friendly. You only need to start the torrent client. that’s all.

For me I would rather tunnel torrent trough a higher layer encryption protocol. Maybe ppl wil provide this.

Ow…for ppl complaining that torrent make their system slow, RAM has nothing to do with it. It’s your CPU. Torrent client with a dozen of active torrents generates so many small packets it’s insane. no too long ago every network packet caused an interrupt. Now with NAPI (is ring buffer method for packets in DMA) that is reduced SOME but BT is still just complete overkill anyway.

normally network applications try and approach a multitude of the current MTU ethernet frame. usually 1500 or so.
This is why -for example- FTP works nice. it doesn’t need to fragment like crazy. At that rate, FTP protocol works very well with NAPI and causes almost no CPU load and is efficient.

BT isn’t in this respect. not at all.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 » Show All

Add your response