| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 50693 | 2004-10-29 05:28:00 | Telecom to Port Shape New Plans? | Ashley Matthews (550) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 285948 | 2004-10-29 05:28:00 | We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some latency if you use delay sensitive applications. Retrieved from here (www.telecom.co.nz). Can we take this as evidence that there will be port shaping? Better not be... Calling Telecom to clarify. |
Ashley Matthews (550) | ||
| 285949 | 2004-10-29 05:46:00 | so what does this 'port shaping' mean then exactly? | barmypom (6048) | ||
| 285950 | 2004-10-29 05:47:00 | Restriction of the speed of certain ports, eg P2P, FTP, Gaming will be slowed down so regular web traffic gets priority | Ashley Matthews (550) | ||
| 285951 | 2004-10-29 05:51:00 | Yeah well they did that with Kazaa on Xtra Jetstart, didn't they? Will this port shaping apply to Bitstream? I don't know why they do this...it infuriates customers. They have plenty of bandwith to go round but just don't want to use it. I mean, 128k, 256k is slow enough already without limiting it more. And the 2mb per sec plan is only good for 10GB. So why are they doing this? Muppets. |
barmypom (6048) | ||
| 285952 | 2004-10-29 06:52:00 | > Yeah well they did that with Kazaa on Xtra Jetstart, > didn't they? > Will this port shaping apply to Bitstream? > > I don't know why they do this...it infuriates > customers. They have plenty of bandwith to go round > but just don't want to use it. I mean, 128k, 256k is > slow enough already without limiting it more. And the > 2mb per sec plan is only good for 10GB. > So why are they doing this? > > Muppets. PROFIT D. |
drb1 (4492) | ||
| 285953 | 2004-10-29 07:03:00 | > > > > Muppets. > > PROFIT > > D. How does limiting p2p and gaming ability affect their profit. Is this because they can get away with charging more money for less overall bandwith or something? |
barmypom (6048) | ||
| 285954 | 2004-10-29 07:08:00 | Bandwidth is directly proportional to costs, if you put through more bandwidth the ISP has to pay more . Since P2P and games consume a lot of bandwidth, restricting them will decrease bandwidth costs and therefore increase profits . Especially since P2P is often illegal (although i've noticed a lot of people are using torrents for most downloads to save on server costs) and are generally the people who use the most bandwidth, the ISP's know that they arn't much of a threat . At the end of the day its just business . - David |
DangerousDave (697) | ||
| 285955 | 2004-10-29 07:09:00 | Barry, Yep. Slow the traffic, but deduct from Cap at Full Speed Rate. Exactlt the same as charging full weight RUC for an Empty Truck. RIPP OFF. D. |
drb1 (4492) | ||
| 285956 | 2004-10-29 07:15:00 | > Bandwidth is directly proportional to costs, if you > put through more bandwidth the ISP has to pay more. Pay more to who? |
barmypom (6048) | ||
| 285957 | 2004-10-29 07:30:00 | They have to pay the people who own the international and national backbone links. If Telecom owns them, it also has to recover the cost of a massive investment - international cable links are not cheap. | Bletch (244) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||