Dear Forum Experts: First, I am using LW 4.13 BETA, Win XP Pro w/SP2, AMD Athlon 86, 1.28G SDRAM, 1400MHz clock, 256MB Radeon 9200, HD's 70% free, home. Some weeks ago posted 'Astonishing Statement By ISP', which basically outlined evasiveness about P2P Upload Throttling, and finally an admission by my ISP, they were using BWidth throttling for P2P Uploads. To my knowledge, this is by far the most serious problem facing open source P2P's across North America, affecting millions of users. BUT, for some reason it is a very rare Forum discussion topic. Is this the unmentionable 'third rail' of P2P's, like Social Security is for politicians? Surprised that above mentioned post received so little helpful response, except from 6Pac & one other member. During a test of almost two weeks, when I upgraded to 5Mbit (8X faster) with my ISP Eastlink.ca and left LW share on for days, found that with the advertised optimum UPload of 125KBYTES per sec, LimeWire sharing UPloads were STILL throttled to a maximum of 3KILOBYTES per sec! My log showed a ratio of successful 100% share UPloads (x?), of one to well over an average of 300 hits (y?). I am in city about half mile from Eastlink.ca node (well within distance limits), and their early evasive excuses about traffic variation is hogwash. It stays at 3KB UP whether it is 4PM or 4AM. I have followed many useful tips by Forum experts; they are great. The core principle of LW and others, is sharing. What could be more important? My principal question remains; why is there almost no discussion about this vital topic? Waiting to hear from the many great expert members. Thanks, caseybob

I think that it is mentioned fairly frequently...by the way, ISPs advertise speed in kiloBITS per second. There are 8 kiloBITS in one kiloBYTE. So, if your ISP advertises 125 kilobits/s, that equals about 15 kilobytes/s.

Doesn't seem so bad now, eh?

Dan

P.S. Have you tried doing a speed test for your connection?

Speedtest.net - The Global Broadband Speed Test

Dear Dan: There was a reason the KILOBYTES were in capital letters. It was done to make it clear to non-expert members that it was in KB's per sec, not Kb's. The upload connection referred to was 1000Kb's, equalling 125KILOBYTES per sec. I have four different speed tests thank you, which keep excellent track of ping, routing, etc. Further, I build computers and write simple programs. Next time you are about to reply to a post, stop and think for a minute before your fingers hit the keyboard. Perhaps you could supply me with, say only five, in-depth Forum discussions on Bandwidth Throttling over the past six months. Yours truly, caseybob

Sorry...I'll just assume that everyone is a computer programmer!

I'm not an 'expert'. I just try to help when I can. I hope you find the answer that you are looking for.

Regards,

Dan

Tiscali blocking Limewire

I have found a solution to getting Limewire to work with Tiscali

ISP's known to BLOCK or Filter p2p or specifically Limewire

Major download problem

I could go on...There have been many a discussion about ISP's that filter/shape and throttle, just use the search tab to find many more....
This forum is very fast paced and if we relise someone has an ISP issue we will discuss it with them...

You really shouldn't be so rude, Danno was just trying to help...

Oh and here's another...
Important!!!!!!! A Fix for those whose ISP's block Limewire

__________________


If you dont live for something...
You die for nothing...

BoB Hi you say.
"Mysterious Lack of Discussion About 'Bandwidth Throttling' by ISP's"
Then Feel free to give us your findings & start one.
You say.
"I have four different speed tests thank you, which keep excellent track of ping, routing, etc".
Whats ping ponging, how about you explaining some of what we
need to know about this stuff.

OH!! & P.S an apology to Dan would be nice.

__________________
mickjapa108

> To my knowledge, this is by far the most serious problem facing open source P2P's across North America, affecting millions of users.

well there are plenty of conversations about that kind of thing on here as already stated i think. personally i find the above statement interesting because i was starting to think broadband connection in the uk (which is where i live), particularly for p2p use, is particularly bad -- i was thinking the uk have a raw deal so far as broadband goes. anyway, i'm not sure if it's good or not, but the above confirms it isn't just the uk which is what i was starting to feel.

i subscribed to tiscali's 8mb unlimted service some months ago. to start with limewire was ok but not from about 2pm to midnight -- outside those times ok, apart from the weekend it was more like 11am to midnight limewire didn't work.

i immediately started to complain as this was contrary to what i had agreed to pay for for one year. the agreement was unlimted -- apart from during designated by tiscali peak hours (6pm to 11pm) you will be monitored and if considered a heavy user during peak hours (no actual quantities given, even on asking specifically for that) you will be put on a piddly little pipe -- my strategy was not to use the internet apart from minimal web page and email use at all during the designated peak hours and use it for p2p etc. outside desgnated peak hours.

things have got progressively worse -- limewire pretty much doesn't work full stop at all at any time that i've tried including early hours of the morning now. it won't connect in order to do a search. i'm getting ok p2p use from after midnight to about maybe 10am with bit torrent. also another p2p app (mac only i think), carracho works, although i don't use it much -- it works even during peak hours i think amazingly!, although i haven't used it to dl much at all, especially during peak hours -- but it connects even during peak hours.

as i said i've complained. i agreed to pay over 200 UKP for a year. the service advertised and the service received do not tally. this in my book is a legal issue -- it is not ok to advertise a product with false claims. if ford advertise their car has a max speed of 200mph and it only goes 100mph they're out of order -- you can get a full refund -- product not as advertised. anyway i've been emailing backwards and forwards for several months now about this. had it stated in email that they do not block p2p. this in itself is incorrect so having that in email is a nice piece of evidence. finally just a day or two ago i've been told my issue has been, can't remember the right word, upped in importance. i received a phone call, although i was out, today from them about this issue. so it'll be interesting to see what the outcome is.


going back to the original point which i quoted from the op, yup i'd agree. i've always thought isp's are in a really critical/powerful position. we have to blindly trust them with keeping our things private -- do they? how deep do their statistical anaysis go into what their customers are doing go? obviously the track quantities but it'd be so easy for them to delve into content of the traffic. what the hell can you do? a publicly owned and run isp? how do you go about connecting to the net without a isp? if you wanted to be an isp what do you need? if this could be made easier, more accessible it'd be good.


i'm a bit confused, illeducated about the whole port number thing. having done a port scan using a security test on a web site, i'm told every single one of my ports is blocked. thing is that test can only do incoming initiated calls. incoming to me that is. when i initiate the call obviously all ports can't be blocked, otherwise i wouldn't even be able to see a web page. so what's needed is an outgoing port scan check which i don't know of. for that to work i think you'd need a cooperating machine on the other end ready to receive your test outgoing calls.

also you can specify any port to use in limewire's prefs, but that doesn't seem to help me.

an isp can't possibly stop you using port 80, web page ports, so what's the deal with using that port for p2p? i'm probably misunderstanding something fundamental by even asking that question -- there's probably a lot more to it that ports.

anyway, broadband isp effect on p2p bad for sure. and it seems global. thing is there really are legal uses of p2p, so the assualt on p2p isn't something that is ok. i guess ultimately trying to deal with this technically isn't the answer -- humanly, agreement, etc..... i don't know, just rambling...

This is a formal apology to Muhctekdano for my reply to his taking time to help. Sorry Dan, it was a smart aleck reply and I apologize.
My thanks to 'wondering why' for locating some excellent in-depth past Forum discussions, particularly 'Lord of the Rings' post of Feb 11, 2005 'ISP's known to BLOCK or Filter p2p or specifically Limewire'. In the opening [i]italicized[i]paragraph there are two great links, particularly 'sandvine', in which a Canadian company outlines its various blocking services to ISP's in a lengthy commercial document.
To 'mickjapa'; I can't supply detailed information about 'Bandwidth Throttling' that I don't have in order to start a discussion, which is why I asked the question. As to me supplying info about pings, routing, etc, it is easily available on many freeware Speed Tests.
As a new junior member of the Forum, I hope my apology is accepted by Dan. Yours truly, caseybob

Threads merged, just to keep it all in the one place

No hard feelings

I get a bit smart-alecky myself, sometimes

Thanks, though

Dan

CaseyBob

I had not intended to take part in this discussing because of your opening premise, i.e. Broadband throttling had not been discussed in this forum. I, myself, have taken part in (and contributed to) many such discussions simply because broadband throttling is just not a US problem it is a worldwide problem. If you check this forum carefully, you will find that people from all over the world are complaining about this and asking what they can do about it.

Now that you have been shown some discussion links, by the ever resourceful Wondering Why, you will now understand that this forum has deeper, more informed discussions than you first gave us credit for.

JohnyBoy

Like you, I am a UK Limewire user and I also feel hard done by the British ISPs, you see I originally moved from Virgin to Bulldog to escape broadband throttling. However, now bulldog has been taken over by Pipex (who have an anti-P2P policy)and NTL, who was the only other UK ISP not to throttle P2P usage, has now been taken over by Virgin.

A friend of mine, who is still with NTL, says that Virgin plan to start, what they call, “User Profiling”, which probably means throttling high-usage customers.

And I also agree with you when you said: It flies in the face of our “Sale of Goods Act”. But it seems that unless someone is willing to take on an ISP in court, like that chap who took on the banks over their excessive bank charges, they will continue to advertise unlimited service while throttling P2P usage.

Finally, I would like to know Ofcom’s position on P2P throttling, after all, they are the body that is supposed to regulate ISPs and protect the consumer from misleading adverts and arbitrarily imposed regulations.

I feel an email to Ofcom coming on.



UK Bob

PS. OFCOM is a UK regulatory body covering TV and Radio broadcasting, telecommunications and wireless communications services.

> Like you, I am a UK Limewire user and I also feel hard done by the British ISPs

broadband was very late/slow in getting going in the first place here i think -- BT. i remember working in london in the early/mid 90s and BT were running work from home telecommute ads on the tube. the place i now live (less than 100 miles from london) broadband was only actually available at all a few years ago. dial up was the only option until not too long ago. that's over 10 years after they're running telecommute ads (for which you surely require broadband -- they were showing video conferencing i think in the ads). and the uk is what, the fourth richest country in the world? and it's densely populated and small compared with others so easier to cover. and we've been in a telecommunications revolution for the last so many years. and, BT have a communications network monopoly in the UK... stunning.

>Finally, I would like to know Ofcom’s position on P2P throttling, after all, they are the body that is supposed to regulate ISPs and protect the consumer from misleading adverts and arbitrarily imposed regulations.

yes, it's not the p2p throttling issue itself alone which is the key issue, it's that, in conjunction with the way the service/products is offered; a company can offer whatever product with as many restrictions as they want -- they just have to be upfront about it. and clearly tiscali, and i'm sure others, have not been upfront to many, many people. i suppose a lot of the people don't even know they're being restricted though, therefore isn't an issue for them.

it really is clearly a legal issue. as well as ofcom there's ASA, the advertising standards authority.

I wholeheartedly agree, I just don't have any confidence that these "regulatory bodies" have any real teeth.


UK Bob

asa don't have legal power but companies do generally comply with their requests i think, as not doing so makes them look very bad.

not exactly related but i know for a fact advertising agencies (any established main ones at least) do exactly what the asa request without fail (maybe some exceptions but generally full compliance is ad agency's response) -- i know advertising agencies aren't exactly the issue here though so that's slightly off issue.

but the asa do have an effect when they say something. whether they end up officially saying what needs saying or not is another thing.




i just got a call from tiscali regarding my p2p problem which resulted in nothing but me getting angry.

"we don't block p2p software" was something that was said with some passion and belief. the workers must have had this drumemd into them. they do block though i reckon as when p2p doesn't work other apps work fine, so it's not down to simple general congestion.

"we never said you'd be able to use p2p". i said yes you did. simply by offering an internet connection without stating "no p2p use" offers p2p, as p2p is _a_ use of the internet, just like any other use (email, web pages etc.). <<<< it's this whole point which is the crux of it imo. they offered an internet connection, but we have a particular-uses-of-the-internet-not-others connection. "internet connection" does not fairly/legally describe a particular-uses-of-the-internet-not-others connection.

"you'll find all the others are the same" (not those actual words but something like it) the imiplication being if you go elsewhere you'll get the same and that makes it ok for us to do it. same elsewhere is true, ok to do it, not imo.

i'm going to continue to email... i'm starting to enjoy the argument -- i feel i'm right.

i've been thinking about making a small claim in a court for some time. it seems to me there is a genuine case. "internet connection" includes p2p. so when an internet connection is offered that means p2p use is being offered. if that argument stands up, including against all tiscali's legal blurb which you were supposed to read when you signed up, then there really is a case i reckon. problem is a very small amount of time p2p is semi-usable so it's not a case of p2p not being useable at all, full stop.