3UK shapeshifts on traffic shaping UK mobile operator 3 has insisted hardly anyone will be affected by the traffic shaping regime it will bring in on Monday. 3's plan is to introduce traffic shaping from Monday, but while the plan was to limit customers attached to congested cells to a single video stream as well as choking P2P applications, the operator has …
In Ireland they are unregulated and can do as they please , remember the Reg article on the loack of SMTP ??
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/07/three_ireland_problems_again/comments/
One poor 3 Ireland customer was driven to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d62jQ22w360
3G cells are becoming almost unusable within metropolitan areas, and it's a pretty much accepted fact that there's a very finite bandwidth available OTA. I didn't even realise that bell-ends were actually using P2P applications.
However, given that most of my 3G traffic ends up being VPN traffic for work (when combined with a laptop), I'll be impressed if they can tell what's hidden underneath.
I'm sorry if you think i am a bell-end for using my data allowance as i please.
I pay (PAYG) for every bit of data i upload or download and it is far more expensive than a fixed line alternative, but my only option.
Why is your VPN traffic any more important than me getting the latest episode of Stargate Universe... i work in IT, an up to date Sci-fi knowledge is almost part of the job description.
I am happy to pay for my traffic and by the nature of it costing lots, i am very careful to download for very short periods of time.
I love connecting to many peers, so why doesn't an ISP actually market a proper service for P2P users? It would be a hit, people would migrate from normal services, people interested in the same files would be on the same network, etc it's win-wins all round.
Would make sending out copyright infringement notices much easier too!
I can't believe any 3 users are really using their connection for P2P. It'd be on channel 5 before the download finishes...
The failings of 3G are obvious - but does 4G really solve them?
What I find myself asking about mobile BB is:How much radio bandwidth is actually available per mast and how much backhaul does a typical mast have?
That to me is where a fixed line gains. With mobile everything after the originating device is contended. With ADSL and BT's FTTC at least you have 1:1 all the way to the exchange. Even VM is contended in the last mile (which might also be a problem as speed and VoD take off - anyone care to comment on that?).
I'm surprised 3 have any traffic to shape. If you're unfortunate enough to live in a building like 96% of the population, you tend to find you have no signal, unless you exit said building and walk sufficient distance from the construction. Even standing next to a 3 antenna makes little difference, but I am enjoying the use of my new tail.
Worst Network EVER...
And who the frig are you to say people can't or shouldn't use P2P on their 3G connections??
Like @ jeremy 3 said, some customers pay for every bit and byte they upload and download, so they shouldn't be able to use it as they please?
Some people ONLY have 3G connections where they live, no broadband available for example, so they might well be using P2P on their 3G connections!!!!
This comes down to the usual story of ISPs selling their unlimited packages, but then telling you, actually, please don't take unlimited literally, because we have MASSIVELY over sold out bandwidth
"With ADSL and BT's FTTC at least you have 1:1 all the way to the exchange"
ADSL2+ can suffer horrendous cross-talk at the upper frequencies. As it takes off (aka 21CN rolls out) it will only get worse :-( VDSL (presumably what FTTC will take the guise of) is the same I believe, though less so.
Whichever tossmonkeys in management decided that mobile broadband could /ever/ be a replacement for fixed line communications should be castrated forthwith. I get bad enough download speed on my Blackberry and if that's any indication of the speed I'd get with a 3.6Mbps dongle then they're laughing all the way to the bank.
"Customers will have to get used to the idea of paying for the bandwidth they use: the majority of low-volume users cannot be expected to subsidise the few who have to have the latest American TV shows early."
Very true. However the first step along this way is correct marketing. Make them all stop selling these "unlimited" plans, and really tell you what you get for your money. Then people will be able to choose a package that suits them, as opposed to the current one-size-fits-none (not really)unlimited packages.
"How many users would be kicking up a fuss abut not being able to watch two live video streams simultaneously? I don't understand why they have changed their mind on this."
Actually, you might be surprised. 3 now sell 3G wireless routers so multiple users can share the same connection. This is probably why... why should a household be limited to say, one YouTube stream at a time?
Besides, the rather rubbish 3 network is probably self-limiting in this respect, as one user could not reasonably expect to have enough bandwidth for two streams.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
