Are Cablecom capping/shaping Usenet downloads?

Ed Pummelon · #1 15.12.2008, 08:50

I know there have been one or two discussions in the past about ISPs and traffic shaping, but I was wondering if anybody had any specific knowledge or experience about Cablecom and Usenet?

I've found that in the last couple of weeks, I've been unable to download anything from Usenet quicker than about 500-600 KB/s, despite having the Cablecom 25 MB package. I've tried it with and without SSL, and on ports 119, 443 and 563 (the last two being the ones my newsgroup provider offers SSL through). In the past I used to get full speed.

My normal http download speeds are fine, and the speedtest on my newsgroup provider's site (Giganews) is also fine. (By fine I mean around 13-15 MB, which is what I normally average on my connection. Lower than the advertised 25, but that's to be expected).

The possibility that I haven't been able to rule out yet, is that Cablecom may be capping or traffic shaping Usenet downloads. Does anyone know whether this is the case - and even if they could, if I connect via SSL?

I'm not saying this is definitely happening, but I'd like to be able to rule it out or in. Any ideas folks?

pregmeier · #2 15.12.2008, 09:03

For me it seems fine.
I get the same speeds as always.

Castro · #3 15.12.2008, 09:34

No problems here either (using UseNeXT), I'm maxing out my 5MB connection with any downloads.

Ed Pummelon · #4 15.12.2008, 09:42

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

Assuming you are both on Cablecom, this makes me wonder if the issue might be more with Giganews than the ISP.

gbn · #5 15.12.2008, 12:08

My mate tells me torrents are OK on the invitation/restricted ones.

Shippy · #6 15.12.2008, 13:24

They could still be capping it - the ISP's in the UK wait until you've reached a certain limit before they apply the packet-shaping.

Ed Pummelon · #7 15.12.2008, 13:33

	Quote:	Shippy
	They could still be capping it - the ISP's in the UK wait until you've reached a certain limit before they apply the packet-shaping.

However I was under the impression that if you connect with SSL then they can't see what type of traffic it is - or do they just do it by port? I don't have a very good technical knowledge in this area.

pregmeier · #8 15.12.2008, 14:09

What port is your Usenet Server on? (SSL)

Ed Pummelon · #9 15.12.2008, 14:14

	Quote:	pregmeier
	What port is your Usenet Server on? (SSL)

Giganews allows 443 and 563. I've tried both with the same results...

I should also point out that this reduction in speed only started a couple of weeks ago, I was getting full throttle before then. There have been no firewall or router changes either.

Shippy · #10 15.12.2008, 14:42

	Quote:	Ed Pummelon
	However I was under the impression that if you connect with SSL then they can't see what type of traffic it is - or do they just do it by port? I don't have a very good technical knowledge in this area.

They can start shaping the traffic whenever they like irrespective of port.

What the OP is actually asking is if they're employing packet shaping for certain types of traffic which is quite possible and extremely annoying.

ChristianK · #11 15.12.2008, 15:14

	Quote:	Ed Pummelon
	However I was under the impression that if you connect with SSL then they can't see what type of traffic it is - or do they just do it by port? I don't have a very good technical knowledge in this area.

while they can't see the type, they surely can see the destination and shape the traffic accordingly.

alaind · #12 15.12.2008, 19:44

Without getting into technical details, your connection's latency might be the issue, especially if Giganews' servers are overseas. I had a similar issue with Easynews and solved it using a download manager that can use several parallel TCP connections to maximize bandwidth usage.

Ed Pummelon · #13 15.12.2008, 19:56

Thanks for the suggestion. Giganews have US and Europe based servers, so I'm naturally using the Europe based ones.

I have 20 simultaneous connections in my package with them, but i don't know if that is the same as the parallel TCP connections you were referring to. Sounds like it?

What I've since tried is a traceroute with them, but I can't really interpret the results, maybe someone here can? I've included the connection to the US servers first, and the Europe servers second. Obviously the last line is me in both cases.


	==news.giganews.com== 1 216.196.98.6 (216.196.98.6) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 2 ge-0-2-0-0.was11.ip.tiscali.net (213.200.66.89) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 3 xe-0-0-0.par20.ip.tiscali.net (89.149.187.165) 85 ms xe-1-0-0.par20.ip.tiscali.net (89.149.187.169) 78 ms 78 ms 4 213.200.76.134 (213.200.76.134) 78 ms 78 ms 79 ms 5 fr-par02a-rd1-ge-6-0.aorta.net (213.46.163.85) 78 ms 78 ms fr-par02a-rd2-ge-4-0.aorta.net (213.46.163.89) 78 ms 6 213.46.160.50 (213.46.160.50) 97 ms ch-gva01a-ra1-stm64-so-0-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.162) 97 ms 97 ms 7 213.46.171.62 (213.46.171.62) 96 ms ch-zrh01a-ra1-xe-4-1-0.aorta.net (213.46.171.10) 96 ms 213.46.171.62 (213.46.171.62) 96 ms 8 mlrOTF008-xge-3-4.aorta.net (213.46.171.50) 96 ms 96 ms 96 ms 9 xxxxxxx.dclient.hispeed.ch (xxxxxxx) 109 ms 104 ms 110 ms ==news-europe.giganews.com== 1 vl201.gw3.ams.giganews.com (216.196.110.3) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 2 216.196.108.179 (216.196.108.179) 0 ms 216.196.108.243 (216.196.108.243) 0 ms 216.196.108.227 (216.196.108.227) 0 ms 3 nl-ams04a-ri1-gige-5-1.aorta.net (195.69.144.106) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms 4 nl-ams02a-ra1-ge-2-0-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.183.61) 1 ms nl-ams02a-ra1-ge-1-1-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.183.178) 1 ms nl-ams02a-ra1-ge-0-0-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.183.77) 2 ms 5 nl-ams05a-rd1-10ge-15-0.aorta.net (213.46.183.98) 1 ms 1 ms nl-ams05a-rd1-10ge-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.183.2) 1 ms 6 213.46.160.226 (213.46.160.226) 14 ms fr-par02a-rd1-pos-5-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.214) 13 ms 13 ms 7 ch-gva01a-ra1-xe-1-0-0.aorta.net (213.46.160.26) 28 ms 23 ms 27 ms 8 ch-zrh01a-ra1-xe-4-1-0.aorta.net (213.46.171.10) 32 ms 41 ms 32 ms 9 mlrOTF008-xge-3-4.aorta.net (213.46.171.50) 32 ms 32 ms 28 ms 10 xxxxxxx.dclient.hispeed.ch (xxxxxxxxx) 55 ms 40 ms 68 ms

It's clear even to me that the Europe server is a better connection (55ms rather than 109ms), but don't really know whether 55ms is acceptable or not. To my layman's eye the bottleneck appears to be higher up the chain (line 6).

Any ideas folks?

alaind · #14 15.12.2008, 20:51

Do you use NNTP or HTTP to transfer files ?

Ed Pummelon · #15 15.12.2008, 21:12

It's SSL over NNTP...

alaind · #16 15.12.2008, 21:30

With Easynews I use HTTP which makes it possible to use one of the many download managers that will spawn simultaneous HTTP sessions which will maximize bandwidth usage. Your NNTP client might have a similar option.

Ed Pummelon · #17 15.12.2008, 21:46

Thanks, I'll check that out. In the meantime, are there any other possibilities as to why this has suddenly gone so slow?

All I can think of is one or more of:

1. Something changed in my setup, like router/firewall (although the life of me I can't think what)
2. Problems at the Giganews end (which would presumably be temporary)
3. Cablecom restricting download speeds

Would that about cover it?

4711 · #18 15.12.2008, 22:41

(People are still downloading stuff from Usenet? Did I just fall though a hole in time?

)

Ed Pummelon · #19 15.12.2008, 22:44

	Quote:	4711
	(People are still downloading stuff from Usenet? Did I just fall though a hole in time? )

Nope, you just went away for a bit and now you're back.

pregmeier · #20 17.12.2008, 12:51

What tools you use to download?