M1 P2P Throttling/Traffic Shaping Policy

SupremeSabre

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Hi

Recently I noticed an increasing number of complaints about slowdown of M1's P2P speeds. A number of mixed responses within the discussions prompted me to contribute my 2 cents about the issue.

While many M1 subscribers complain about speeds, a handful of others are quick to retort that 'they got what they paid for', 'M1 didn't promise anything'. and 'it's already in the contract'.

First of all, let us avoid falling into a perpetually fruitless debate on whether M1 subscribers are being short-changed or not-- because of the absence of exact quantifiable metrics on speeds that would qualify ISPs' services to be satisfactory, with respect to their corresponding advertised broadband plan. This is where I agree with sijie123 that the IDA could step in and make transparent the benchmarks designed to keep ISP service standards in check.

Without such metrics in place, I believe I am entitled to my opinion that it is unreasonable that:

1) M1 falsely claims "subscribers on P2P activities will find that their data or file transfer might slow down by up to three times the normal average speed." when in actuality, it slows down by FIVE HUNDRED times, for LONGER than the stipulated duration of 2pm-2am.

2) M1's traffic shaping policies does not make proportionate the bandwidth usage amongst users. Starhub and Singnet's peak-period throttling still yields 1-2mbytes/s, while M1's draconian 'measure' cripples all p2p to a halt. Stalking someone on FB already requires over 20kbps of throughput. Does it make sense to slow a 100mbps subscriber's p2p speeds to 10kbps? Let's not even compare it to streaming youtube videos.

3) The fibre plans were chiefly represented as an upgrade over the cable plans, but any p2p user who jumped from Singnet/Starhub to M1 would realise that p2p downloading is severely downgraded. If the only activities considered as 'normal usage' are surfing and checking emails, is there even a speed upgrade? To me, this appears to be a case of 'misleading half-truths' on advertised speeds and 'incomplete information' on throttling that amount to misrepresentation. In addition, the Second Schedule of the Consumer Protection Act considers the use of small prints to conceal a material fact from the consumer or to mislead a consumer as to a material fact to be an Unfair Practice. I leave it to you guys to judge whether P2P capping is material or immaterial. Finally, I don't think a cheaper plan (over other ISPs) serves as a mitigating factor over any form of misrepresentation, Unfair Practices or Unfair Contract Terms.

That said, I do hope that M1 is not abusing Traffic Shaping as a means of coping with a surge of subscribers (as suggested by many), since many of us are gonna be stuck to them for some time.

Disclaimer:
If I wanted to do blind-bashing I'd be formulating conspiracy theories about ISP collusion with HTTP filehosts or VPN services:s13: My sole intention is to reason. Thanks for reading
 

LemonT

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
7,241
Reaction score
4
Hi

Recently I noticed an increasing number of complaints about slowdown of M1's P2P speeds. A number of mixed responses within the discussions prompted me to contribute my 2 cents about the issue.

While many M1 subscribers complain about speeds, a handful of others are quick to retort that 'they got what they paid for', 'M1 didn't promise anything'. and 'it's already in the contract'.

First of all, let us avoid falling into a perpetually fruitless debate on whether M1 subscribers are being short-changed or not-- because of the absence of exact quantifiable metrics on speeds that would qualify ISPs' services to be satisfactory, with respect to their corresponding advertised broadband plan. This is where I agree with sijie123 that the IDA could step in and make transparent the benchmarks designed to keep ISP service standards in check.

Without such metrics in place, I believe I am entitled to my opinion that it is unreasonable that:

1) M1 falsely claims "subscribers on P2P activities will find that their data or file transfer might slow down by up to three times the normal average speed." when in actuality, it slows down by FIVE HUNDRED times, for LONGER than the stipulated duration of 2pm-2am.

2) M1's traffic shaping policies does not make proportionate the bandwidth usage amongst users. Starhub and Singnet's peak-period throttling still yields 1-2mbytes/s, while M1's draconian 'measure' cripples all p2p to a halt. Stalking someone on FB already requires over 20kbps of throughput. Does it make sense to slow a 100mbps subscriber's p2p speeds to 10kbps? Let's not even compare it to streaming youtube videos.

3) The fibre plans were chiefly represented as an upgrade over the cable plans, but any p2p user who jumped from Singnet/Starhub to M1 would realise that p2p downloading is severely downgraded. If the only activities considered as 'normal usage' are surfing and checking emails, is there even a speed upgrade? To me, this appears to be a case of 'misleading half-truths' on advertised speeds and 'incomplete information' on throttling that amount to misrepresentation. In addition, the Second Schedule of the Consumer Protection Act considers the use of small prints to conceal a material fact from the consumer or to mislead a consumer as to a material fact to be an Unfair Practice. I leave it to you guys to judge whether P2P capping is material or immaterial. Finally, I don't think a cheaper plan (over other ISPs) serves as a mitigating factor over any form of misrepresentation, Unfair Practices or Unfair Contract Terms.

That said, I do hope that M1 is not abusing Traffic Shaping as a means of coping with a surge of subscribers (as suggested by many), since many of us are gonna be stuck to them for some time.

Disclaimer:
If I wanted to do blind-bashing I'd be formulating conspiracy theories about ISP collusion with HTTP filehosts or VPN services:s13: My sole intention is to reason. Thanks for reading

How an ISP shapes its traffic is up to their discretion. What ISP tries to provide is good Internet experience for all its subscribers, not to provide good p2p experience for a small amount of bandwidth hoggers.
p2p hoggers should sign up to those RSPs which promises no throtting at all.

If you are paying $39/mth for a 100mbps plan, how you think the ISP is going to survive if they do not practice some extreme throttling to a protocol that usually consumes 75% of their total bandwidth?
 

harky

Great Supremacy Member
Deluxe Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
57,617
Reaction score
2,312
i think not only these le.. i see ppl complain abt M1 Fibre Down....
u pay $39 doesn't mean it can also down
 

sijie123

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
How an ISP shapes its traffic is up to their discretion. What ISP tries to provide is good Internet experience for all its subscribers, not to provide good p2p experience for a small amount of bandwidth hoggers.
p2p hoggers should sign up to those RSPs which promises no throtting at all.

If you are paying $39/mth for a 100mbps plan, how you think the ISP is going to survive if they do not practice some extreme throttling to a protocol that usually consumes 75% of their total bandwidth?

1. End users were NEVER told that M1 shapes so badly. - I asked them, they said "M1 does not shape traffic" when I signed the bloody contract.

2. Over-generalization there - Not all P2P users are hoggers. Besides, we are living in the 21st century. Not end-20th-century where we are on Dial-up.

Well I do agree with you, M1 would die if they don't throttle. But that doesn't give them the rights to throttle until the speed is even more horrible than A DAMN DIAL-UP CONNECTION... Just how little bandwidth do they have =.=
 

chaicka

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
22,530
Reaction score
2
1. End users were NEVER told that M1 shapes so badly. - I asked them, they said "M1 does not shape traffic" when I signed the bloody contract.

2. Over-generalization there - Not all P2P users are hoggers. Besides, we are living in the 21st century. Not end-20th-century where we are on Dial-up.

Well I do agree with you, M1 would die if they don't throttle. But that doesn't give them the rights to throttle until the speed is even more horrible than A DAMN DIAL-UP CONNECTION... Just how little bandwidth do they have =.=

The p2p throttled speed on fiber may not be more horrible than p2p used on a dial-up connection. If I recall correctly, in those dial-up days, the devices cannot even withstand the numbers of concurrent sessions that p2p uses, in current times.

In short, those dial-up connections may even give 0.x kbps or even drop the dial-up entirely, if it's use with p2p of current contents/method.
 

whaleshark87

Supremacy Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
9,315
Reaction score
0
1. End users were NEVER told that M1 shapes so badly. - I asked them, they said "M1 does not shape traffic" when I signed the bloody contract.

2. Over-generalization there - Not all P2P users are hoggers. Besides, we are living in the 21st century. Not end-20th-century where we are on Dial-up.

Well I do agree with you, M1 would die if they don't throttle. But that doesn't give them the rights to throttle until the speed is even more horrible than A DAMN DIAL-UP CONNECTION... Just how little bandwidth do they have =.=

It's the end users that is horrible. P2P are extreme resource consuming applications. They rather shape traffic than to repace their requipments every few months. If most want decent P2P, then ISP changes equipments every few months and pass the costs to consumes, would you like that? :s13: Think about it. All companies in singapore are about profit making and least expenses used.
 

ArcticCheetah

Banned
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
36,000
Reaction score
2,088
It's the end users that is horrible. P2P are extreme resource consuming applications. They rather shape traffic than to repace their requipments every few months. If most want decent P2P, then ISP changes equipments every few months and pass the costs to consumes, would you like that? :s13: Think about it. All companies in singapore are about profit making and least expenses used.
I do not agree with you.
For the cost they are charging they should be upgrading their infrastructure.
 

violator

Master Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
0
For $39, what is there to grumble. If not happy pay higher price and go for viewqwest, myrepublic and superinternet
 

ots168

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
The more complain on M1 is better for M1 current user. so lesser new users will want to signup with M1. Then we all can enjoy more. :)
maybe exisiting user some will left and let us have more space to roam.
cheers.
 

sijie123

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
For $39, what is there to grumble. If not happy pay higher price and go for viewqwest, myrepublic and superinternet

well at least we paid 39.
Or rather, lucky people paid 39.
I paid 49 =.= i.e. on par with MyRepublic but way lousier than them.

So "what is there to grumble"? Well, nearly EVERYTHING.
 

sijie123

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
It's the end users that is horrible. P2P are extreme resource consuming applications. They rather shape traffic than to repace their requipments every few months. If most want decent P2P, then ISP changes equipments every few months and pass the costs to consumes, would you like that? :s13: Think about it. All companies in singapore are about profit making and least expenses used.

There always seems to be a confusion with many people.
P2P are high resource consuming applications but they
1. Won't cause faulty equipments every few months and
2. People always have the idea that people with good P2P speeds like to torrent 24/7/365 as if they have unlimited hard disk space.
 

di_andrei

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
254
Reaction score
45
I do use p2p every once in a while and get throttled in the face every time by M1. Note, I do not consider myself a bandwidth hog, my total bandwidth usage is probably far lower than that of someone who uses video streaming regularly or other high bandwidth applications.

I'm still on cable, after the discount I'm still paying over $50 for 30Mbps, which gets throttled down to 1Mbps. Needless to say I am voting with my feet and will be walking away next month - NGBN and the new small internet service providers (viewqwest, myrepublic, superinternet, etc) are the BEST thing that could have happened - I intend to support them with my business for a long long time to come, and recommend them to friends.

It's as simple as that, the "big 3" are extremely non-competitve in terms of both pricing and services compared to ISPs elsewhere, despite Singapore being a close to ideal market (a lot of consumers concentrated over a very small area). But then again, they need to support a bunch of retail shops, pay rent and employees, and fund "free" laptop promotions, dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 

LemonT

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
7,241
Reaction score
4
1. End users were NEVER told that M1 shapes so badly. - I asked them, they said "M1 does not shape traffic" when I signed the bloody contract.

2. Over-generalization there - Not all P2P users are hoggers. Besides, we are living in the 21st century. Not end-20th-century where we are on Dial-up.

Well I do agree with you, M1 would die if they don't throttle. But that doesn't give them the rights to throttle until the speed is even more horrible than A DAMN DIAL-UP CONNECTION... Just how little bandwidth do they have =.=

Actually I understand most people sign up 100mbps is to do some form of p2p (BT, streaming etc), if not why bother to sign up 100mbps in the first place. So I made an extra effort to sign up a VPN to circumvent the shaping. :s13: .

Not all p2p users are hoggers, but their combined usage hogs the ISP's bandwidth.
 

Just Me

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
14,250
Reaction score
41
Actually I understand most people sign up 100mbps is to do some form of p2p (BT, streaming etc), if not why bother to sign up 100mbps in the first place. So I made an extra effort to sign up a VPN to circumvent the shaping. :s13: .

Not all p2p users are hoggers, but their combined usage hogs the ISP's bandwidth.
Are you on M1 fibre as well?
 

LemonT

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
7,241
Reaction score
4
There always seems to be a confusion with many people.
P2P are high resource consuming applications but they
1. Won't cause faulty equipments every few months and
2. People always have the idea that people with good P2P speeds like to torrent 24/7/365 as if they have unlimited hard disk space.

Most people download, watch and delete when done.

1 p2p user can use the bandwidth needed by maybe 10 people doing web surfing or download. From an ISPs perspective, will it not do any shaping to make the 1 p2p user happy? or do shaping to ensure the 10 web-surfing users are happy.
 

sijie123

Junior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
All under my name in the same premise. =:p

I have done a BT comparisons for all my fiber connections in this thread.

Does OpenVPN work too?

Most people download, watch and delete when done.

1 p2p user can use the bandwidth needed by maybe 10 people doing web surfing or download. From an ISPs perspective, will it not do any shaping to make the 1 p2p user happy? or do shaping to ensure the 10 web-surfing users are happy.

That brings me back to my point again. At the current rate M1 is shaping, 1000 P2P users' speed (10KB*1000=10MB/s) added together is even lesser than 1 normal web streaming user loading a youtube video (up to 12.5MB/s).

Are you on M1 fibre as well?

Yes I am. Regret it.

I do use p2p every once in a while and get throttled in the face every time by M1. Note, I do not consider myself a bandwidth hog, my total bandwidth usage is probably far lower than that of someone who uses video streaming regularly or other high bandwidth applications.

I'm still on cable, after the discount I'm still paying over $50 for 30Mbps, which gets throttled down to 1Mbps. Needless to say I am voting with my feet and will be walking away next month - NGBN and the new small internet service providers (viewqwest, myrepublic, superinternet, etc) are the BEST thing that could have happened - I intend to support them with my business for a long long time to come, and recommend them to friends.

It's as simple as that, the "big 3" are extremely non-competitve in terms of both pricing and services compared to ISPs elsewhere, despite Singapore being a close to ideal market (a lot of consumers concentrated over a very small area). But then again, they need to support a bunch of retail shops, pay rent and employees, and fund "free" laptop promotions, dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You get 1Mbps. I get 80Kbps.
I am definitely not getting M1 in the future. You too.
and I totally agree with you - MR and SI are the best providers. (well they can't afford to give you poor quality. 1 report to IDA and thats it.)
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top