In reply to a post by Matt182:

That was not my Intention, was just backing up what orly was saying that�s all

I wasn't criticising. Just that someone may be able to help, and if you fancy that then a new thread would be best .

The only way I know how to bypass the shaping on Infinity is via VPN. Not bad if you already have VPN capability for other uses, but if you don't that's extra expense on top of your monthly costs.

I went with Plusnet for a few reasons. Though they do have a few cons to go with the pros as well.

Pros:

A: 120GB peak allowance - plenty for me, equates to 4GB a day, and most days im at work, all my downloading is done overnight anyway.

B: Honest about shaping - Unlike other ISPs with vague FUPs, Plusnet come clean with what you should expect from your connection, with regards to speed at certain times of the day via certain protocols.

C: The ability to disable shaping altogether - Something Infinity does not have, an extra £5 a month to Plusnet, and there is no shaping, end of. Even with the extra £5, it only takes the monthly fee up to £26.49 for 120GB peak usage (8am-midnight) and absolutely unlimited off-peak. I did close to 1TB last month off-peak and I didn't even have to try that hard.

D: Option of a Static IP - I'm not sure if Infinity has this option, but I didn't think so.

Cons:

A: The 120GB peak time allowance counts upload traffic as well, not a major problem for me, but for other people that upload lots, that could be a problem.

B: No 10Mbit upload option - for now you are stuck with the 2Mbit upload variant. Though they do have plans to provide the 10Mbit option in future, along with the 20Mbit option when it is released.

C: No IPv6 yet - again they have plans to provide it in future, it's in the trial stages, but it's not that important for me - but may be a problem for others.

Edited by reddev86 (Sat 10-Dec-11 19:18:46)

In reply to a post by reddev86:

The only way I know how to bypass the shaping on Infinity is via VPN. Not bad if you already have VPN capability for other uses, but if you don't that's extra expense on top of your monthly costs.

No probs with traffic shaping here with Bittorrent and infinity. Use a client such as Utorrent and just force encryption. Always max out my connection at any time of the day, depending on seeds of course...

In reply to a post by sparky76:

No probs with traffic shaping here with Bittorrent and infinity. Use a client such as Utorrent and just force encryption. Always max out my connection at any time of the day, depending on seeds of course...

Ah ok, I had assumed that even with encryption forced, theyd still be able to identify the protocol, fair play.

It becomes underhand when they pull the "we don't shape your connection" card out of the hat. If they similarly impose rather long peak periods with a relatively small allowance then i'd definitely say it qualifies.

You can determine if the peak allowances are small by first taking account of the fact that an FTTC connection, running at an "average" 30Mbit/s, can move 9720GB of data in a month. If your connection is in "peak" 12 hours a day and "off peak" 12 hours a day then assume the "off peak" time is fine and dandy. Take therefore the assumption that during the "peak" your average FTTC connection can, ideally, move 4860GB of data. Then take your current allotted peak time allowance and work out what the proportion is. Attempt not to be annoyed at the result.

Or, join BT, and not worry about it in the slighest as peak time does not exist and, from my experience over the last 17 months, slow downs are far less than would require them to institute half the day being "throttled by GB allowance"

Generally, throttling at an ISP level works by either crude blocking of ports right through to analysis of the types of traffic, the protocols in use, and the duration of the connections between hosts on the network. An HTTP request for example will look rather different to a torrent download. Unfortunately for ISPs, any system can be defeated or at least compromised when people come up with a new system that works against them.

In any event, the assumption that BT actively throttle any protocol or port on an infinity connection is also flawed. Unfortunately it seems to be peddled relentlessly by some. My experience, as someone using the service for 17 months, suggests it simply isn't true. If one takes time to read the published BT policy on usage they'll see it specifically states that no protocols are blocked as a matter of course. Furthermore no protocols are prioritised. P2P applications "may be managed" at "peak times" which is essentially "during the day and evenings".

In simplified terms this translates as "We'll only manage P2P and we'll only manage it on the occasions when it starts having an impact on overall service".

It's why I find the "but BT traffic shape your Bit Torrents!" posters even more funny. You'd think they'd understand how foolish they look when they come out with statements such as this - with no evidence and no experience of the situation (as they are almost always users of other (more expensive) ISPs). Essentially, these types are paying more for a service that is actually more actively throttled than BT's one. Their perceptions obviously played a decision in their original ISP selection process but as explained the perceptions are faulty. I can understand this would be rather frustrating so the default response, rather than find fault with their own ISPs or their own purchasing decisions, is to find fault with the decisions and ISPs of others.

Psychology...a simple science

Edited by orly (Sun 11-Dec-11 02:59:42)

Oh I wasn't attacking BT, in fact when I was choosing ISP, I was tempted by Infinity, just a few small things swung me towards Plusnet, such as the option of a static IP, and the community aspect of the ISP, not to mention the cash back I get for my existing referrals, think my FTTC actually costs me about £12.50 a month, when my referrals are taken into consideration.

In reply to a post by orly:

If one takes time to read the published BT policy on usage they'll see it specifically states that no protocols are blocked as a matter of course. Furthermore no protocols are prioritised.

I was aware of this, but I'd actually see this as a disadvantage. I'd want the more bandwidth-critical protocols such as VoIP, VPN and gaming traffic given priority over others during busy periods, which I now have.

I've actually recommended Infinity for a few friends, for the price you can't really get any better value for money at the moment.

It's only a disadvantage if there isn't enough capacity in the first place which is likely to be the case if one is spending peanuts per month.

In reply to a post by Zadeks:

It's only a disadvantage if there isn't enough capacity in the first place which is likely to be the case if one is spending peanuts per month.

and then you might be at the top of the priority list, but still stuck in a "lack of capacity" issue. Capacity is always required, and a growing FTTC customer base will be a big jump for many ISPs.

In reply to a post by orly:

Generally, throttling at an ISP level works by either crude blocking of ports right through to analysis of the types of traffic, the protocols in use, and the duration of the connections between hosts on the network. An HTTP request for example will look rather different to a torrent download. Unfortunately for ISPs, any system can be defeated or at least compromised when people come up with a new system that works against them.

Crude systems can be like this. Good systems are rather better.

Last time I tried, Plusnet's system was perfectly capable of detecting P2P stuff on odd ports, even when encrypted. It wasn't very defeatable - but things might have changed; I guess it is an ongoing battle

In any event, the assumption that BT actively throttle any protocol or port on an infinity connection is also flawed. Unfortunately it seems to be peddled relentlessly by some. My experience, as someone using the service for 17 months, suggests it simply isn't true. If one takes time to read the published BT policy on usage they'll see it specifically states that no protocols are blocked as a matter of course. Furthermore no protocols are prioritised. P2P applications "may be managed" at "peak times" which is essentially "during the day and evenings".

In simplified terms this translates as "We'll only manage P2P and we'll only manage it on the occasions when it starts having an impact on overall service".

The only problem is that you have no real idea what you are signing up for until you try it - and with 18 month contracts, you're locked in for an awfully long time, with little recourse if "things" start to happen.

Now, note that this statement of fact has 2 different consequences for 2 different groups.

For avid P2P people, they'd prefer that "management" never happens, and hope that either BT don't see P2P "having an impact" or BT find it impossible to manage effectively. But if P2P gets out of hand and it *is* possible to manage, then your 17 month period may turn out to be no more than a lucky honeymoon. Imagine a 1 month honeymoon and 17 months with dire P2P service instead!

For non-P2P people, they want precisely the opposite. A fast, stable network that prioritises interactive & time critical protocols that doesn't get any interference from the sheer volume of P2P. If BT fail to control P2P, this group run the risk of being locked into an 18 month contract with terrible behaviour - akin to the worst of Virgin's latency problems.

Which way will it go? The problem is that we just don't know yet. On one hand, BT's "unlimited" policy means it is very attractive to the very worst-case P2P 24-7 max volume crowd - so BT are more likely to get to the point of needing to manage. On the other hand, if they fail to control things, then they have access to Plusnet's expertise on traffic management.

It's why I find the "but BT traffic shape your Bit Torrents!" posters even more funny. You'd think they'd understand how foolish they look when they come out with statements such as this - with no evidence and no experience of the situation (as they are almost always users of other (more expensive) ISPs). Essentially, these types are paying more for a service that is actually more actively throttled than BT's one. Their perceptions obviously played a decision in their original ISP selection process but as explained the perceptions are faulty. I can understand this would be rather frustrating so the default response, rather than find fault with their own ISPs or their own purchasing decisions, is to find fault with the decisions and ISPs of others.

I agree with you regarding the evidence & experience. So far BT *have* been able to cope with the P2P levels thrown at it so far.

With ADSL, it took a while for congestion to start hitting throughput, and FTTC will be the same: but still, congestion will come eventually. We subscribers just don't know (yet) how the chips will fall, or when. BT probably does know, but chooses not to tell us.

I'm only a casual P2P user (Linux disks, etc), and have far stronger requirements that I can predict that my connection stays usable throughout the day, throughout my contract period, without uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) interference from others. The Plusnet package gives me the best of both worlds on this, but I think it happens to give me one very great advantage: The mere existence of peak hour limits keeps the very worst bandwidth abusers on someone else's ISP!

So yes, I am deliberately getting a connection that is limited at times (but paying less for it), but am willing to do so because there is a specification of what those limits are, and I can live with those limits.

I *could* live with BT's current offering too, but I don't know if I could live with it tomorrow.

Risk management. Not such a simple science