as been expected before, TMNet has finally capped the files dloading thru P2P. from the rumours, they might introduce special packages for heavy dloaders or briefly, special difff packages, base on our usage and requirements.

yeah, and that's is the time when we will need per-usage-Packages.

Agree, maybe the SSH servers are overloaded, and tunnels are now 'congested' as well...

@sanook, dude, ur sigs really make my day...hehe

@dragna

the only good thing is, that person is the only hosts uploading the file to you.. (based on the picture)

The throttling should not have any relation whatsoever to the server. The server problem might explains why do we need to refresh pages few times before it's fully loaded(even here at LYN) Throttling should be done by different equipments and that's their sole function.

So, this means the throttling is for all P2P-BT, local n international. Agree?

This post has been edited by scarred: Oct 6 2006, 10:59 PM

dude, chill man...
The situation rite now actually is bad for both, the ISP and the Users...P2P is the technology(not to be blamed), but with any technology, it comes with 'weaknesses' to the extent that it can be abused or exploited. Not to blamed the users, but many of them never realised.

Any broadband provider will oversubscribe their bandwidth, since broadband is treated as best effort basis (at least by TMNet). And, for MCMC regulation, the requirement (latency and bandwidth) only cover connection inside the TMNet connection locally.

Yeah, we, the users should be able to do what ever we want to do, but the call still comes from the provider, the infra owner. P2P is here to stay, no matter what. So, i strongly believe, ISP should have another way of letting the users keep on connecting to the peers swarm, maybe thru diff packages.

Customers are not stupid, and the ISP as well. So, just take it positive way, and let them do their work, while in the meantime, we can always have good discussion and maybe to propose to TMNet about our requirement (instead of sending them complaints only)

Personally, i think their problem is more on the cost. AFAIK, on internatonal gway (core router) would cost them 4mil. And they need at least 2 of that box each site. Not to forget, the cost of maintaining, and repair from time to time. That does not include the links to be rent/purchased from cable providers at foreign sites. The other ISP might charge them as well.

U might say go'ment can back them up. But, that would deny the fact that, we don't want anymore 'monopoly' rite? So, let's think about that...

For me, i would say streamyx sux, but i'm still proud to be malaysian, so i won't curse my own nation or even it's countrymen. thanks.