View Full Version : BBC iPlayer & Traffic Shaping?
chichard673
27-07-2007, 22:42
A typical download for a half hour programme seems to be over 200MB, so for the public to fully enjoy this service they are going to have problems with Virgin in my opinion. Let's say they wanted to download several programmes and soaps they missed, will they then be classified as "heavy" downloaders.
Just an observation, not to forget that if you mention doing staggered downloads over the week then by the time you get the programme the expiry date for it may be close.
dcclanuk
27-07-2007, 22:47
A typical download for a half hour programme seems to be over 200MB, so for the public to fully enjoy this service they are going to have problems with Virgin in my opinion. Let's say they wanted to download several programmes and soaps they missed, will they then be classified as "heavy" downloaders.
Just an observation, not to forget that if you mention doing staggered downloads over the week then by the time you get the programme the expiry date for it may be close.
How long did it take for the BBC to get back to u with the login info?
I registered on the site a couple of hours ago... still no email from them yet:erm:
A typical download for a half hour programme seems to be over 200MB, so for the public to fully enjoy this service they are going to have problems with Virgin in my opinion. Let's say they wanted to download several programmes and soaps they missed, will they then be classified as "heavy" downloaders.
Just an observation, not to forget that if you mention doing staggered downloads over the week then by the time you get the programme the expiry date for it may be close.
You don't understand STM (traffic shaping as you put it), do a search for any of the thousands of posts that explain it because I've given up trying to. Apart from that, BBC iPlayer content will be available on the cable TV system eventually. I can't see iPlayer causing any more problems than exist now.
chichard673
27-07-2007, 23:24
How long did it take for the BBC to get back to u with the login info?
I registered on the site a couple of hours ago... still no email from them yet:erm:
Registered at midnight last night, got an email around 5pm today...
chichard673
13-08-2007, 20:04
Seems I was right.... http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting/a71402/isps-worried-iplayer-will-overload-network.html
alferret
13-08-2007, 20:09
How long did it take for the BBC to get back to u with the login info?
I registered on the site a couple of hours ago... still no email from them yet:erm:
Took em best part of 2 weeks for me to get the login info :sleep:
Gunslinger
13-08-2007, 22:48
You don't understand STM (traffic shaping as you put it), do a search for any of the thousands of posts that explain it because I've given up trying to. Apart from that, BBC iPlayer content will be available on the cable TV system eventually. I can't see iPlayer causing any more problems than exist now.
I think the point that the OP was making is that if for example you are on the 'L' service you will blow your 750mb limit and be STM'd after downloading only 2-3 shows. And the whole point of accessing VOD services is to view the content when you want to, not in the middle of the night or while you should be at work.
While some BBC and C4 content is available on the VM catch up TV service, by no means all is, and there is no indication that content from other 'legal' providers (eg ITV, C5, Sky etc) will be in the foreseeable future, if ever.
As these services develop, users will quite rightly expect to be able to access them without restriction. It's not just illegal downloaders who form the mythical top 5% who will end up being 'traffic managed' unless VM (and other ISPs) drastically review the STM thresholds and/or invest in capacity.
This is not just a VM-bashing issue, it affects the entire industry - see the recent media reports about Tiscali and BBC I-player.
xspeedyx
13-08-2007, 23:19
I really don thinks its a problem how long s really gotta take to get a 350mb with slowest speed will be 140KB/s
I really don thinks its a problem how long s really gotta take to get a 350mb with slowest speed will be 140KB/s
I see you are asking for the time it will take based on being already STM'd which is about 50 mins. 25 minutes if you were getting what you thought you were paying money to them for.
I think the point that the OP was making is that if for example you are on the 'L' service you will blow your 750mb limit and be STM'd after downloading only 2-3 shows. >>> I'm on 'M' bb, and have downloaded about 10 shows in a two weeks on iplayer with no probs.
While some BBC and C4 content is available on the VM catch up TV service, by no means all is, and there is no indication that content from other 'legal' providers (eg ITV, C5, Sky etc) will be in the foreseeable future, if ever. >>> what is on iplayer /c4od that isn't on catch up tv / on demand? I'd like to see more content available via the online services. Disappointing content so far.
As these services develop, users will quite rightly expect to be able to access them without restriction. It's not just illegal downloaders who form the mythical top 5% who will end up being 'traffic managed' unless VM (and other ISPs) drastically review the STM thresholds and/or invest in capacity. >>> see first reply.
This is not just a VM-bashing issue, it affects the entire industry - see the recent media reports about Tiscali and BBC I-player. >>> zzz. come on, what's the fuss about exactly?
xspeedyx
14-08-2007, 08:33
Okay it takes alittle bit longer but you can download in the day before 4 and after 12 midnight at full speed but I just know the people that complain about stm would be the first to complain if they had reallly slow speeds due to heavy downloaders affecting the network if you need a higher speed upgrade
Great advert that. join us and stay up till after midnight to get a half decent service. There are no heavy downloaders, there's just an insufficient network that they will not spend money on.
We have to realise that we are with an isp that is cutting corners and hiking prices. this can only be a bad thing for all eventually. we can't keep saying that we can't see a problem.
mrmistoffelees
14-08-2007, 08:55
[QUOTE=Paul H;34374814] Great advert that. join us and stay up till after midnight to get a half decent service. There are no heavy downloaders,there's just an insufficient network that they will not spend money on. [QUOTE]
And your proof of this is where precisely ? Or is this just another oppurtunity for you to spout your worn out rhetoric against VM ?
[quote]And your proof of this is where precisely ? Or is this just another oppurtunity for you to spout your worn out rhetoric against VM ?
Where is your proof that it's not? show me proof that UBRs are not over utilised, and there are no capacity issues. if you can't show me this then I'll just take it that this asking for proof all the time is just an opportunity to discredit. this is not politics.
Virgin say that 95% of us are not heavy downloaders, take that figure and spread it over the whole network, do you come up with supply and demand and cut corners?
mrmistoffelees
14-08-2007, 09:11
[quote=mrmistoffelees;34374818]
Where is your proof that it's not? show me proof that UBRs are not over utilised, and there are no capacity issues. if you can't show me this then I'll just take it that this asking for proof all the time is just an opportunity to discredit.
Ahem, The bold part......
However since you are making the bold statements regarding network capacity issues. Maybe you can provide cast iron proof of that also ??
opportunity to discredit ?
a) That's exactly what you are doing to VM
b) I don't need to discredit you, you do that yourself already I'm afraid
for Virgin, if they wanted to pay the money they could upgrade the network and dump STM, instead they choose STM, it saves money, and thats about it.
back onto the iplayer, i dont think it iwll be much of an issue, as although it will slow down, it will also still work, so its not cutting them totally.
However if a lot of people use iplayer, VM may no longer be able to claim its only affecting 5% and may have to re-think things.
slowcoach
14-08-2007, 13:17
I would have thought that the uploading (seeding) would be more of a problem rather than the downloading, from what I have read the BBC iPlayer uploads as much as it can get from you and you cannot reduce the upload speed as per a normal P2P client, perhaps someone who is running iPlayer could confirm if indeed it is a law unto itself or not.
7@m3 G33k
14-08-2007, 14:17
I would have thought that the uploading (seeding) would be more of a problem rather than the downloading, from what I have read the BBC iPlayer uploads as much as it can get from you and you cannot reduce the upload speed as per a normal P2P client, perhaps someone who is running iPlayer could confirm if indeed it is a law unto itself or not.
That's very interesting...is that because it uses some P2P technology to assist the distribution of media? Just out of curiosity I'd be interested if you have a source for that info.
Regarding the topic, haven't we all heard this before? Yes Paul: there are bandwidth limitations due to underinvestment in VM's network infrastructure and we should lobby and complain to reverse that policy. However with the situation as it is STM is necessary to limit a minority of lazy/greedy/probably illegal P2P hogging all of that bandwidth with pr0n, warez, music & movies (and not legitimate media like that available to the BBC iPlayer). What will happen as bandwidth is increased? These people will simply try to download more so STM will still be necessary.
I'm not a fan of VM as my posts on their atrocious customer service and money-grabbing premium-rate broadband tech support line demonstrate but on STM they are right so in the meantime I guess heavy users of BBC iPlayer will have to be a little cleverer: presumably it is possible to capture the streamed media for playing later thus allowing downloads to be scheduled outside of peak time? I don't know, anyone?
Yes Paul: there are bandwidth limitations due to underinvestment in VM's network infrastructure and we should lobby and complain to reverse that policy. However with the situation as it is STM is necessary to limit a minority of lazy/greedy/probably illegal P2P hogging all of that bandwidth with pr0n, warez, music & movies (and not legitimate media like that available to the BBC iPlayer)
But do Virgin care what people are downloading to be in the 5% that is the reason for the STM? They don't care what the content is and neither should we. we are telling others off for downloading too much already and now we are going to have to tell each other not to download the BBC iPlayer because it will spoil it for the rest of us all over again.
Just suppose that the 5% that Virgin bangs on about all the time were downloading through the BBC iPlayer on say a secret trial before all the STM was brought in. For 5% of the many thousands to cause all this to happen at an early stage in the development of high speed internet, and the future of it, speaks volumes.
7@m3 G33k
14-08-2007, 15:03
But do Virgin care what people are downloading to be in the 5% that is the reason for the STM? They don't care what the content is and neither should we. we are telling others off for downloading too much already and now we are going to have to tell each other not to download the BBC iPlayer because it will spoil it for the rest of us all over again.
Just suppose that the 5% that Virgin bangs on about all the time were downloading through the BBC iPlayer on say a secret trial before all the STM was brought in. For 5% of the many thousands to cause all this to happen at an early stage in the development of high speed internet, and the future of it, speaks volumes.
Actually I DO care what people download! Even when iPlayer has a wide user-base and there is plenty of content available I expect that it's general use will still take up far less network bandwidth than porn and illegal P2P. As far as I'm concerned porn (copyrighted/DRMed or not, don't care) is generally "a bad thing" and the less there is around and the less is hogging bandwidth the better for everyone.
As for illegal P2P of copyrighted/DRMed material (software, music, film, etc.) all this does is strengthen the position of the likes of M$ and the media monopolies in increasing prices and forcing more copy protection & DRM on to us.
I'm also no big fan of capitalism but it's not going crumble because a few P2P downloaders are sniggering behind their sweaty palms at how "clever" they've been to download for free the latest screener of some movie only just showing in the multiplexes.
It's high-time internet use grew up: things (bandwidth, software, media) have to be paid for somehow (even FOSS things) - there is no free ride or lunch, do not pass go, do not collect £200.
As far as I'm concerned porn (copyrighted/DRMed or not, don't care) is generally "a bad thing" and the less there is around and the less is hogging bandwidth the better for everyone.
Less porn around will not help anyone. I would say that porn is what the majority of people sign up for. if there was less porn then Virgin would suffer. all the job losses too, not only in the porn industry but in the manufacturing of hard drives.
7@m3 G33k
14-08-2007, 15:32
Less porn around will not help anyone. I would say that porn is what the majority of people sign up for. if there was less porn then Virgin would suffer. all the job losses too, not only in the porn industry but in the manufacturing of hard drives.
:blah:
Oh look, you changed the subject and went off on a tangent again when you could not deal with the on-topic arguments, no surprise there :rolleyes:
:blah:
Oh look, you changed the subject and went off on a tangent again when you could not deal with the on-topic arguments, no surprise there :rolleyes:
:zzz:
How have I gone off topic and changed the subject? when I have just posted in regards to the subject and thread. and thrown in an answer to your questionable opinion at the same time? :rolleyes:
mrmistoffelees
14-08-2007, 15:46
:zzz:
How have I gone off topic and changed the subject? when I have just posted in regards to the subject and thread. and thrown in an answer to your questionable opinion at the same time? :rolleyes:
Still waiting for your concrete evidence by the way........
sprattgraham
14-08-2007, 15:53
Not a problem here can't even get the thing to work:
All I keep getting is a message about needing a security update I click yes to download it but nothing happens !
Still waiting for your concrete evidence by the way........
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/08/17.jpg
mrmistoffelees
14-08-2007, 15:57
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2007/08/17.jpg
hmm, how funny, unfortunately, I've seen a small yappity type dog able to hold a reasonable debate and present factual evidence better than your good self.
From this I conclude all you want to do is slag off VM and you really have no knowledge about what you are talking about.
From this I conclude all you want to do is slag off VM and you really have no knowledge about what you are talking about.
Do you read the virginmedia support groups? that's where you'll get the evidence. I can only do so much for you, and holding your hand is not one of them.
slowcoach
14-08-2007, 17:45
That's very interesting...is that because it uses some P2P technology to assist the distribution of media? Just out of curiosity I'd be interested if you have a source for that info.
A couple of views here.
http://idunno.org/archive/2007/08/06/the-bbc-iplayer-sucks.aspx
http://www.opinionatedgeek.com/Blog/blogentry=000322/Blog.aspx
That's very interesting...is that because it uses some P2P technology to assist the distribution of media? Just out of curiosity I'd be interested if you have a source for that info.
Regarding the topic, haven't we all heard this before? Yes Paul: there are bandwidth limitations due to underinvestment in VM's network infrastructure and we should lobby and complain to reverse that policy. However with the situation as it is STM is necessary to limit a minority of lazy/greedy/probably illegal P2P hogging all of that bandwidth with pr0n, warez, music & movies (and not legitimate media like that available to the BBC iPlayer). What will happen as bandwidth is increased? These people will simply try to download more so STM will still be necessary.
I'm not a fan of VM as my posts on their atrocious customer service and money-grabbing premium-rate broadband tech support line demonstrate but on STM they are right so in the meantime I guess heavy users of BBC iPlayer will have to be a little cleverer: presumably it is possible to capture the streamed media for playing later thus allowing downloads to be scheduled outside of peak time? I don't know, anyone?
I can see how there is a case for STM (despite my av.) at the moment, under the current state of VM's creaky infrastructure. However, this does not mean that VM can afford to sit on their laurels and do nothing to rectify the situation and bring their hardware up to a state that is capable of handling todays media rich, bandwidth hungry internet that we all know and love. It is essential that VM are seen to be trying to ease the situation by publicising their upgrades and giving us assurances that STM is not here to stay. Granted, it's not going to be cheap and I have no idea how it can be achieved, the only thing I can do is point to other countries and saythat if it can be done there, it can be done here.
If we want a media heavy web experience, it may well be that we'll have to pay a little more, but VM have to give a little too. The current limits are laughable and need immediate reconsideration. The 20Mb rollout was totally unnecessary in the current climate and is, IMO, a cynical ploy by VM to get everyone to pay much more by making the lower tiers very unattractive. But that then begs the question, if everyone upgrades to 20Mb, what happens then? Either we all end up on dial-up speeds due to overloading, or the whole thing goes into meltdown.
The BBC iPlayer and its ilk is going to become more popular and STM cannot become a permanent solution. The days of simple web pages is long dead. ARPANET is no more. Technology marches on and VM need to keep up without the excessive shackling they are currently using.
7@m3 G33k
14-08-2007, 22:30
I can see how there is a case for STM (despite my av.) at the moment, under the current state of VM's creaky infrastructure. However, this does not mean that VM can afford to sit on their laurels and do nothing to rectify the situation and bring their hardware up to a state that is capable of handling todays media rich, bandwidth hungry internet that we all know and love. It is essential that VM are seen to be trying to ease the situation by publicising their upgrades and giving us assurances that STM is not here to stay. Granted, it's not going to be cheap and I have no idea how it can be achieved, the only thing I can do is point to other countries and saythat if it can be done there, it can be done here.
If we want a media heavy web experience, it may well be that we'll have to pay a little more, but VM have to give a little too. The current limits are laughable and need immediate reconsideration. The 20Mb rollout was totally unnecessary in the current climate and is, IMO, a cynical ploy by VM to get everyone to pay much more by making the lower tiers very unattractive. But that then begs the question, if everyone upgrades to 20Mb, what happens then? Either we all end up on dial-up speeds due to overloading, or the whole thing goes into meltdown.
The BBC iPlayer and its ilk is going to become more popular and STM cannot become a permanent solution. The days of simple web pages is long dead. ARPANET is no more. Technology marches on and VM need to keep up without the excessive shackling they are currently using.
Agreed. My rant was at those like Paul H (is he even a VM customer??) who just say: "I paid for my 20MB/s, I want it 24/7 and **** VM and **** everybody else" - as mrmistoffelees has suggested in this thread, too many people think that because they pay for something they absolve themselves of all responsibility in the use of that thing and anything else associated with it.
For example, I pay my council tax (considerably more than I pay to VM for that matter!) and part of that pays for refuse collection, recycling, the municipal tip, street cleaning. Do I think that payment gives me license to drop litter? No. Do I still have a responsibility to sort my rubbish to assist recycling? Yes.
Please don't think I'm lecturing you dav (I do think we're on the same side on this), I'm just venting and your sane words have encouraged me to say a little more! So let's accept our own responsibilities and so strengthen our hand in lobbying VM together for more investment in network infrastructure.
Agreed. My rant was at those like Paul H (is he even a VM customer??) who just say: "I paid for my 20MB/s, I want it 24/7 and **** VM and **** everybody else"
Please do not swear in the forum. hiding letters with asterixes does not disguise the word. and please do not make wild accusations against my person! can you substantiate your claim made against me? I hope you can as you have quoted me saying it. :mad:
Please may I remind users to
1) Not try to bypass the swear filter by asterisking part of the word. Its there for a reason
2) Refrain from making personal comments against other members.
Can you please remove the quote of "I paid for my 20MB/s, I want it 24/7 and **** VM and **** everybody else" as I have never ever said that.
7@m3 G33k
14-08-2007, 23:16
<snip>
and please do not make wild accusations against my person! can you substantiate your claim made against me? I hope you can as you have quoted me saying it. :mad:
Oh please! :rolleyes: I clearly caricatured the opinions of a group of people who I judge to have similar views to yourself. It is plain to anyone not prone to hysterical pedantry that this is not meant as a quotation from a particular person in any way shape or form.
Please may I remind users to
1) Not try to bypass the swear filter by asterisking part of the word. Its there for a reason
2) Refrain from making personal comments against other members.
I apologise for attempting to bypass the swearing filter. Perhaps you could also edit the quote from me that Paul H included in his post as that still contains these asterisked offensive words.
Oh please! :rolleyes: I clearly caricatured the opinions of a group of people who I judge to have similar views to yourself. It is plain to anyone not prone to hysterical pedantry that this is not meant as a quotation from a particular person in any way shape or form.
What you think it was and what it can be interpreted as are two different things. it clearly looks to an outsider that I have either said or think that. I stand by my request for it to be removed.
hokkers999
15-08-2007, 00:16
As far as I'm concerned porn (copyrighted/DRMed or not, don't care) is generally "a bad thing" and the less there is around and the less is hogging bandwidth the better for everyone.
So just because *YOU* don't like porn that makes it a BAD thing? Who elected you the internet censor for the entire world? don't like, ignore it.
What if the rest of us think that what you do is "bad" should you be stopped from doing it? didn't think so :dunce:
So just because *YOU* don't like porn that makes it a BAD thing? Who elected you the internet censor for the entire world? don't like, ignore it.
What if the rest of us think that what you do is "bad" should you be stopped from doing it? didn't think so :dunce:
Well said hokkers. it's people like 7@m3G33k who say " I don't have a need for porn because I have a low sex drive and can't get it up anyway" that think we all have to go without it too! very selfish.
hokkers999
15-08-2007, 00:32
Well said hokkers. it's people like 7@m3G33k who say " I don't have a need for porn because I have a low sex drive and can't get it up anyway" that think we all have to go without it too! very selfish.
That wasn't what he actually said now was it :erm: if you aren't careful all that will happen is a mod will come along and either close the thread or you'll get a "holiday"
7@m3 G33k
15-08-2007, 00:37
So just because *YOU* don't like porn that makes it a BAD thing? Who elected you the internet censor for the entire world? don't like, ignore it.
What if the rest of us think that what you do is "bad" should you be stopped from doing it? didn't think so :dunce:
The point I was making was that it's perfectly legitimate to make value judgements about different kinds of internet traffic. This thread is not about the merits or otherwise of porn so I didn't (and won't) go into detail about the reasons why I think it is "a bad thing".
And oddly enough not only do I not think that I should be the internet traffic arbiter, I am also quite convinced that in spite of my objections a fair amount of porn will continue to hog net bandwidth for a long time to come.
hokkers999
15-08-2007, 00:39
The point I was making was that it's perfectly legitimate to make value judgements about different kinds of internet traffic. This thread is not about the merits or otherwise of porn so I didn't (and won't) go into detail about the reasons why I think it is "a bad thing".
And oddly enough not only do I not think that I should be the internet traffic arbiter, I am also quite convinced that in spite of my objections a fair amount of porn will continue to hog net bandwidth for a long time to come.
See there you go again, why is something you disapprove of "hogging" bandwidth, as opposed to say your traffic which simply uses what you've paid for :dozey:
if you aren't careful all that will happen is a mod will come along and either close the thread
That normally only happens with the threads I start for some reason :)
---------- Post added at 00:44 ---------- Previous post was at 00:43 ----------
See there you go again, why is something you disapprove of "hogging" bandwidth, as opposed to say your traffic which simply uses what you've paid for :dozey:
That really is an extremely good point! :clap::clap::clap:
The point I was making was that it's perfectly legitimate to make value judgements about different kinds of internet traffic. Not in the context of bandwidth use, unless it's about the efficiency of use. People will watch what they want to watch, be it football, porn, or bum fights. That's what made the internet big...
That wasn't what he actually said now was it :erm: if you aren't careful all that will happen is a mod will come along and either close the thread or you'll get a "holiday"
That normally only happens with the threads I start for some reason :)
Strange, that.......
7@m3 G33k
15-08-2007, 09:09
Not in the context of bandwidth use, unless it's about the efficiency of use. People will watch what they want to watch, be it football, porn, or bum fights. That's what made the internet big...
I disagree Daniel. Whilst the internet is undoubtedly a spectacular technological phenomenon it has from it's very beginnings had other dimensions. Today these are social, economic, political, cultural, legal and more. So in the context of STM on our little branch of the net I was suggesting that we need to be honest with ourselves about the nature of the traffic that is causing congestion.
This is critical. For example, if we as customers were to lobby VM to invest in their network infrastructure to allow us to illegally download more copyrighted music and film we will get nowhere very fast. On the other hand legitimate bandwidth-heavy applications like the BBC iPlayer service (for all it's many faults) may well give us more clout to argue for greater bandwidth.
Those who stand on the sidelines and simply slag-off VM and anyone who dares to suggest that their downloading behaviour might be anti-social and/or illegal (and I do not mean you Daniel) will achieve nothing.
I disagree Daniel. Whilst the internet is undoubtedly a spectacular technological phenomenon it has from it's very beginnings had other dimensions. Today these are social, economic, political, cultural, legal and more. So in the context of STM on our little branch of the net I was suggesting that we need to be honest with ourselves about the nature of the traffic that is causing congestion.
I said in another post of mine somewhere about it's them kind of people that download 'illegal' and copyrighted material that keep companys like Virgin in business. it would be nice if we could get rid of this kind of thing but I don't think we can.
7@m3 G33k
15-08-2007, 10:49
I said in another post of mine somewhere about it's them kind of people that download 'illegal' and copyrighted material that keep companys like Virgin in business. it would be nice if we could get rid of this kind of thing but I don't think we can.
Careful Paul - we're in serious danger of agreeing about something here! ;)
You're right of course that we won't see an end to this kind of thing any time soon, if ever. However as I have been trying to say network congestion and STM are part of a wider set of complex non-technical (and non-VM finance-related) issues.
May I suggest that you'd get a better reception from a lot of people on here if you were perceived to engage with some of the broader issues more frequently. Oh and while I'm making suggestions you'll get a better response from me if you restrict yourself to satirical caricature rather than simply offensive caricature. Of course this is a fine line which perhaps I am guilty of crossing myself occasionally, so I'll be more careful too.
<snip>
Please don't think I'm lecturing you dav (I do think we're on the same side on this), I'm just venting and your sane words have encouraged me to say a little more! So let's accept our own responsibilities and so strengthen our hand in lobbying VM together for more investment in network infrastructure.
I didn't think that for a moment. Anyway, I thought pontification was a basic right of forum users, at least it seems to be in some quarters.:)
What annoys me most about ISPs and traffic shaping policy is that they seem to want our custom on their terms only. They want us to sign up to their services, but then say, "This is the best service there is, but please don't use it too much so we can keep our costs down". (Note: I'm paraphrasing from interpretation of AUPs. I do not have in my possession an actual link/letter/SMS/email from any ISP with this exact quote).
It really does smack of "biting the hand that feeds you."
Chrysalis
15-08-2007, 13:03
That's very interesting...is that because it uses some P2P technology to assist the distribution of media? Just out of curiosity I'd be interested if you have a source for that info.
Regarding the topic, haven't we all heard this before? Yes Paul: there are bandwidth limitations due to underinvestment in VM's network infrastructure and we should lobby and complain to reverse that policy. However with the situation as it is STM is necessary to limit a minority of lazy/greedy/probably illegal P2P hogging all of that bandwidth with pr0n, warez, music & movies (and not legitimate media like that available to the BBC iPlayer). What will happen as bandwidth is increased? These people will simply try to download more so STM will still be necessary.
I'm not a fan of VM as my posts on their atrocious customer service and money-grabbing premium-rate broadband tech support line demonstrate but on STM they are right so in the meantime I guess heavy users of BBC iPlayer will have to be a little cleverer: presumably it is possible to capture the streamed media for playing later thus allowing downloads to be scheduled outside of peak time? I don't know, anyone?
He is correct, unlike typical p2p software iplayer installs a service that auto runs on bootup or if not running starts when iplayer is started and is able to utilise full upload bandwidth, this bandwidth cannot be throttled without a 3rd party app. The p2p service cannot be stopped within iplayer. If stopped manually it is reloaded when iplayer is next started.
7@m3 G33k
15-08-2007, 14:37
I didn't think that for a moment. Anyway, I thought pontification was a basic right of forum users, at least it seems to be in some quarters.:)
<snip>
You calling me a Catholic? I'll have you know I'm a godless barbarian atheist! IRL as well as WoW... :erm:
christopherw
16-08-2007, 04:29
He is correct, unlike typical p2p software iplayer installs a service that auto runs on bootup or if not running starts when iplayer is started and is able to utilise full upload bandwidth, this bandwidth cannot be throttled without a 3rd party app. The p2p service cannot be stopped within iplayer. If stopped manually it is reloaded when iplayer is next started.
From my own observations (and others), iPlayer is a *little* more polite with regards to bandwidth usage - it doesn't really seed stuff unless it's REALLY in demand and the main servers are overwhelmed, if you are seeding content (which mainly only happens while you're downloading it), it doesn't use all of your upstream, which is a good thing because otherwise it would choke the connection and slow it down overall - and it's well behaved if you start to use your connection for web browsing or other stuff, it'll throttle itself back to give your connection more 'breathing space'. I've observed this in realtime on both my machines, and my Dad's laptop, and other users on places like BBC mailing lists.
That said, when I start to use iPlayer more and more on my XL connection, I am going to raise HELL when I get capped and it takes me longer to download the programme than it will to watch it.
Chrysalis
16-08-2007, 15:21
From my own observations (and others), iPlayer is a *little* more polite with regards to bandwidth usage - it doesn't really seed stuff unless it's REALLY in demand and the main servers are overwhelmed, if you are seeding content (which mainly only happens while you're downloading it), it doesn't use all of your upstream, which is a good thing because otherwise it would choke the connection and slow it down overall - and it's well behaved if you start to use your connection for web browsing or other stuff, it'll throttle itself back to give your connection more 'breathing space'. I've observed this in realtime on both my machines, and my Dad's laptop, and other users on places like BBC mailing lists.
That said, when I start to use iPlayer more and more on my XL connection, I am going to raise HELL when I get capped and it takes me longer to download the programme than it will to watch it.
Different to my own experience then.
It maxed out my upstream (90kB/sec) for a good 20 minutes even when iplayer was closed until I shutdown the kservice. Documentation related to the software says nothing about it throttling back as well. I ahave also read the BBC mailing lists and funnily enough have read the opposite to what you saying with users complaining about their bandwidth going out of control.
mrmistoffelees
16-08-2007, 15:27
As an aside, why would you play hell about being capped when you already know the limits ? It's not as if you were unaware of it !
cookie_365
16-08-2007, 20:11
He is correct, unlike typical p2p software iplayer installs a service that auto runs on bootup or if not running starts when iplayer is started and is able to utilise full upload bandwidth, this bandwidth cannot be throttled without a 3rd party app. The p2p service cannot be stopped within iplayer. If stopped manually it is reloaded when iplayer is next started.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34364598-post43.html
Chrysalis
17-08-2007, 16:13
and?
the original statement remains correct it cannot be stopped within iplayer.
cookie_365
17-08-2007, 19:50
and?
the original statement remains correct it cannot be stopped within iplayer.
I never said it wasn't - I was offering a workaround.
Have I just committed some huge social faux pas by doing that?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.