Re: crooks in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15633302 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:03:03 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:03:03 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637444 anon : When I buy a plane ticket, I expect a seat on the plane. That's the service I'm paying for. If I don't board on time, I'm SOL - the plane leaves without me. It will travel to its destination with 5 passengers or 200.

If the airline sells my seat to someone else, I get a new ticket (with upgrades and apologies for their failure to provide the contracted service). I'm not about to pay a fee to guarantee they don't sell my seat.

The guy in first class is paying a premium for a bigger seat. I'm just fine in coach...we both arrive at the same time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637444 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:39:26 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637406 Michieru2 : Reality is what you make of it. Albert Einstien had his own views of the world and upon reality, he was stereotyped for his works. The Wright brothers where told that humans can't fly and people told them to wake up to reality. Thanks to them we now have airplanes.

The real world is what you believe it is from your own eyes. Nobody has the same reality or view of this world and that's why we all have choices. So frankly I don't really think he got his thought from Miss Cleo and that right there was actually not necessary.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637406 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:24:24 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637201 Michieru2 : I won't argue about cable companies splitting nodes but most people are aware that as the demand is more than the supply those networks will have to be upgraded and the purpose of most networks is to never really reach that 100% capacity but at least 95% with spare for more customers. The percantage can be even lower. Which is why a network will never reach 100% unless it's upgraded regularly to meet that demand. Of course nobody will ever get the exact advertised speed but quality of service for every user is a must. If the company cannot provide that quality of service even during peak hours there lines basically just operate as best effort systems. Either way all customers have a limit which are now set up at the CO instead in the modem like it was before. So the CO must have the capacity to handle the load of every customer. If not then your going to have congestion, horrible ping times, and unreliable service that would fly up and down.

The customers pay for there connection but the companies want to traffic shape data so they won't have to upgrade there CO's more frequently so that in return is more money for them and simply locking out competition and sticking a tax for using your connection with another provider is probably even illegal. But correct me if I am wrong.

I don't got my head up my ass because in this day in age quality of service must be met even for standard end users. Also you pay for what they advertise and while there still many factors the quality you just mentioned cable provides seems rather poor at best. People now rely on VOIP and other critical services for there every day lives and when they come home or use these services they expect that bandwidth that they pay for to be there. Not for the neighbor next door finally decides to stop downloading porn so you can call your family in Europe. Or some ISP blocking or giving low priority to VOIP packets because they don't want to upgrade there CO's.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637201 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:53:44 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637012 TKJunkMail :
said by Michieru2 See Profile :

Networks are made to handle load they are expanded to keep the network from ever actually reaching 100%. This only happens when the demand is greater than the actual supply you have.
And I submit that with cable operators the upstream path is almost always oversold and that the path reaches 100% frequently. All it takes is for a couple dozen P2P users to slow the upload for the 200 to 1000 users that are typically on a single cable segment. And that is when prioritizing traffic can keep the voice product working.

You can argue that the cable company should keep splitting nodes until a single cable segment can handle every single user on the segment running 24x7 upload at maximum advertised capacity. But we all know that isn't how networks are run. That is the reality of cable systems even though many here are completely unable to accept that reality.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15637012 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:27:18 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636778 Michieru2 : Networks are made to handle load they are expanded to keep the network from ever actually reaching 100%. This only happens when the demand is greater than the actual supply you have.

QOS indeed only works once your line has reached full capacity and is considered more like a turbo same way a turbo works on a car basically. Only instead of having the packets delayed there put first and keeps the connection maxed out from both ends.

Back on topic though I see no reason why this ISP is charging customers to have other options. Last time I checked a tax is a contribution to state revenue and levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

While you might say this falls under the category of services locking out competition is wrong and a unfair business practice. There is no reason why this ISP should be doing this and if it does not reflect in there TOS that they charge for 3rd party VOIP and also traffic shape VOIP packets or block this service until you pay they can be sued for obstructing there agreement with current customers and not mentioning it to new customers as well. So if I where them I would stop this tax before they get sued for it and credit the money back from people who already paid.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636778 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:00:48 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636389 Nick : I'm sorry, that's borderline idiotic. Just because you get similar arguments from various people and you don't agree with them it does not make everyone who opposes your view a trained monkey or a puppet. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636389 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:07:50 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636234 Nick : Did you use Miss Cleo for your reading? Stereotyping is great fun and sometimes it's accurate but you obviously have your own idea of what reality is and sadly, it differs from the current state of the real world. Welcome to capitalism.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.

Gallery * Life * Work]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636234 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:47:25 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636148 rradina : I just don't agree. I've had VOIP (Vonage) for over three years and it's been working fantastic without any QOS or traffic shaping. Even the nature of HTML is such that low latency without packet loss is what makes a pleasurable experience. Granted, it might be OK to delay getting the HTML to your browser for a second or two but in today's media-rich Internet, when is the last time you've received a "pure text" HTML document? Once that HTML is back in the browser, it gets parsed and then the browser starts requesting images and the multitude of flash and/or AJAX advertisements. Even a 200ms delay in retrieving these means the user watches the screen paint like a 300 baud BBS's welcome page.

I will agree that provided the TCP window size is large enough for the connection's speed and latency, an HTTP or FTP download won't be affected by high latency. However, I'm not sure packet loss is ever tolerable. It makes everything bad.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636148 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:34:19 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636142 G_Poobah : Please refer to : »Re: Just for giggles...

I want to thank you for responding correctly. I said "I paid for Internet Access", and you correctly responded with "Then Start your own Network!"

Woooota! Predicted your response THREE (3) weeks ago! You didn't let me down.

Proof you again all the paid astroturfing corporate apologists share the same scripts! Maybe you should get a new script!
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15636142 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:33:59 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635672 Nick : You need to educate yourself a bit more before you rant. Your porn traffic is only as important as the ISPs executives decide it is. What gives them the right? Their money, their implementation and their rules. If it's possible to engineer what they want it's going to be done no matter how much you complain about it. There is DSL/Dial Up if you're not happy with what you signed up for. Nobody is twisting your arm to force you to subscribe.

In a DOCSIS implementation it's possible to provide different priority services. Change the SfSchedulingType to UGS and your non-UGS packets take a back seat.

That's how things are done in a cable company...If you don't like it/agree with it. Start your own Cable Company and make your own rules ;)
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.

Gallery * Life * Work]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635672 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:26:59 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635538 G_Poobah : Internet access is a published standard on how traffic works. Internet access is BEST EFFORT throughout the network. Internet access is NOT what Verizon, or Comcast, or Shaw decides it is.

Your Lie : My porn traffic is FAR more important than your 911 call as far as I'M concerned. What gives YOU the right to say that your call goes through, and my porn gets slowed down? We both paid for 'internet access'. Period. You don't get to decide that your magic 911 call about your lost gerbil is more important than my porn.

Your Lie : "So commercial traffic is almost always higher priority than your traffic". Absolutely and totally untrue. There is no difference between a packet from a commercial person and a packet from a residential person. The only thing a 'commercial' account gets you is a BIGGER PIPE and BETTER UPTIME. Period. Uunet doesn't treat commercial traffic from verizon any different than it treats residential traffic from comcast. Because that's what the internet IS. It's not SHAWS call, It's not Verizons call to determine which packet is more important than the other. All packets are treated to best effort, and if the QUALITY of that best effort isn't good enough, then

a) Don't sell speeds you can't support
b) Upgrade your network.

See, they have 2 choices.. It's very easy. Spend money to deliver what you promise, or don't promise it. Most people learn that in Kindergarten, but apparently the executives have forgotten lifes important lessons. Guess all those greedy brain cells crowd out the reality of the world.

*Sorry Kamm..
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635538 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:09:24 EDT Re: Let's go back to your original lie http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635344 Nick : but an upstream port on a CMTS is not an oc-192. They could solve that by buying more CMTS's but that costs $. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635344 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:46:20 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635323 Nick : You pay for internet access and the only thing that really entitles you to is that your packet can go from point a (your cable modem) to point b (whatever you're accessing). I have never seen an ISP advertize or claim that they can get your packet from point A to point B in x amount of time. Just like they don't guarantee or claim you'll always get x megabits per second. They always claim UP TO...x

In reality the ISP is in the business to make money, they will provide better quality of service to a commercial client typically because they have a Service Level Agreement with them and that can potentially cost them more money. So commercial traffic is almost always higher priority than your traffic. Then there's voice traffic. Imagine if it's an emergency 911 call (something many MSOs still lack a good impementation of) vs someone's porn packets...Voice goes through because it's important.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.

Gallery * Life * Work]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635323 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:44:18 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635176 bmn :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by amungus See Profile :

a packet is a packet is a packet people,
No, it isn't. There are file download packets, and browsing packets, and then there are real-time packets that can't be delayed and need QOS guarantees to work - like voice conversations.
Yes, but unless Shaw is mismanaging their network or running at near capacity, there should be no need for them to have to implement QoS. The router shouldn't be buffering packets but instead should be passing them in near real-time anyway.

QoS is fix for the problems of the providers and they are trying to foist the cost in onto the backs of others.
--
New Rule: People who defend economic systems, like capitalism & communism, from ANY criticism, need a life.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635176 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:25:01 EDT they are anti-competitive http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635124 anon : their own VOIP service can't match Vonage pricing so they resorted to this bullshit. not only do they degrade other VOIP packets, they also degrade gaming packets as well in certain areas. CRTC won't do a thing since they don't regulate internet-related services. Shaw pretty much can do this as long as they want. Vonage complaints won't get through.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635124 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:18:30 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635070 Emendo : Yes, all those are encapsulated in IP packet. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15635070 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:09:14 EDT Re: Let's go back to your original lie http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15634307 kamm : Umm I was talking to him, in case you haven't noticed... ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15634307 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:30:50 EDT Re: Let's go back to your original lie http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633873 en102 : I agree - if customers have been using VoIP for quite a while now haven't had issues, why should this now be a concern?

I'm assuming that Shaw wants
a) $$$
b) to be able to pass the buck if someone points the finger for a dropped call

As all these companies are always pushing speeds 8 or 10 Mbps , and typically do not have the outbound capacity to handle it, they want to set standards (and make more $$$). If you look at shaw's network map, they have an OC-192 running cross country, so they should have ample bandwidth.

»www.bigpipeinc.com/pdf/network_m···rnet.pdf]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633873 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:32:18 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633818 shashinka : Actually end to end delay can be higher than most expect. Can be up to As long as the stream is consistent then the call will sound fine. What is more detrimental to the conversation is jitter, when the response time fluctuates. Another factor is packet loss (dropped data packets). Depending on the codec used (g711, g729) some lost packets can be corrected in the stream via error detection/correction mechanisms.

This link provides all sorts of technical information regarding this: »www.voiptroubleshooter.com/indep···ces.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633818 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:25:56 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633763 shashinka : Cisco themselves recommend 70%. I myself having worked for and managed a Network Operations Center for a phone company that provided internet access. Our network usually ran during the day between 30-40% capacity. Maybe even higher at points, during this time our response times were still in check for streaming voice and video. I agree with G_Poobah on this. QOS is only needed during the peak times to assign bandwidth priority to the stream. On some even basic network setups no QOS is setup for voice calls and customers are told that everything will be fine unless there is a broadcast storm or some kind of traffic that is affecting the ports associated with the VOIP traffic. Such as an ip multicast for ghosting.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633763 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:19:49 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633750 grumpygeek : If a Shaw engineer wants to post the extract from their QoS config on here - or even confirm that they have QoS in the core and out to the CMTS's, I'll take back my assertion that it's anything more than a predatory marketing move.

Not that it's a bad one; I would be awfully nervous if I were with them right now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633750 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:18:09 EDT Re: Let's go back to your original lie http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633696 G_Poobah : *sigh*.. As usual, I'll have to post the background information about QOS. Background: Internet2 had a highly qualified real world working group with no profit motive study QOS in an unbiased, technical manner, to document problems and solutions for these so called 'traffic jams'. These studies are openly published for all to read, and reflect the real world results of a network hundreds of times faster than todays regular internet. Let me summarize for those too lazy to read it.

»qbone.internet2.edu/

"Moreover, within the Internet2 environment very few application performance problems can be traced to network congestion. Instead, end-to-end performance is often hampered by faults on or near end-systems including: broken TCP stacks (e.g. inadequate socket buffering), Ethernet duplex mismatch, and crummy cabling (e. g. CAT3, shared media, or physical damage)."

So, how is it that the cable companies/telephone companies 'magically know better' than the designers of internet 2? Are all their engineers smarter? Do they know more? Oh, wait, does the profit motive make them more technically savy? NO. The only reason the megacorps even bring up the concept of QOS is so they can RIP PEOPLE OFF. QOS isn't the solution, and it's been proven time after time again in real world studies.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633696 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 15:11:57 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633564 DaveNJ :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by G_Poobah See Profile :

Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
OUTRIGHT TRUTH:
Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world.
If a network is running at 40% people will feel it, a network at 100% is likely the same a highway at 100% nothing is going to happen. 40% is usually the limit before upgrades are needed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633564 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:58:26 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633527 amungus : ok, you got him. both of you must have a bit more knowledge than I... either way, agreed that it's greed.

didn't even consider internet2, yeah, they've been toying with that for quite some time...

...your first "Outright lie!" ...don't real time packets need low latency/fast access??? perhaps not qos, as we're arguing here in this thread, but do they not need the low latency? I always thought that was the point of having high speed internet, that it was also supposed to be low latency...

that's where my thought of them (shaw, or any isp) upgrading equipment comes in... for what purpose again??? oh yeah, so people could benefit from faster, lower latency network access...

let the neutrality wars begin.
I would bet on gamers to weigh in on this more and more as they begin to realize that these things could also affect them more... I play some online games, barely, but when I do, I expect them to work. Many isp's have touted their services as being fit for such things... suddenly they aren't??????? ooops.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633527 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:54:09 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633481 sieklucki1 : Well put--a user's packets should all be treated equally.

VOIP should not suffer degradation alone, if VOIP is working badly, all other internet traffic should be working equally badly. Of course, if the internet is slow a customer will move to a different provider.

However, a similar argument works for good quality. If everything but VOIP works well then the provider is artificially degrading VOIP and thus not really providing internet access as most companies advertise.

As for charging extra--if I pay for internet access all my packets should be delivered to me equally (well or badly). I should not be penalized for having "different types" of packets.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633481 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:48:50 EDT Let's go back to your original lie http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633472 kamm :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by G_Poobah See Profile :

Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
OUTRIGHT TRUTH:
Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world.
OUTRAGEOUS LIE: when you're implying Shaw will have to spend even a dime on handling VoIP packets.
What a BS.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633472 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:47:29 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633431 TKJunkMail :
said by G_Poobah See Profile :

Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
OUTRIGHT TRUTH:
Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633431 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:42:08 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633373 G_Poobah : As usual, your corporate astroturfing attempts to divert the problem by stating incorrect facts and outright lies.

Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.

Lie #2 : QOS Solves the problem. Another OUTRIGHT LIE. QOS solves the problem ONLY if they traffic load is at 100%. In any working network, QOS does NOTHING to the traffic until there is too much traffic. If Shaw is running at 100% load, then they have bigger problems than QOS will ever solve.

Lie #3 : There are different kinds of packets. Another OUTRIGHT LIE. All packets are treated equally. As long as the NETWORK is working correctly, then the traffic will work correctly. I can be running at 95% load, and my VoIP should have NO MORE LATENCY than if I were running at 5% load. LATENCY is not related to TRAFFIC LOAD until the traffic load is at 100%. If there is Latency at sub 100% loads, then the network has problems (hardware/misconfiguration/not powerful enough routers/etc), but QOS isn't the solution.

Another pack of lies by people who want to rip you off. There is no techncial reason whatsoever you should have to pay more to get acceptable internet service. This is an outright greed tax, that solves nothing. Want proof? Just encyrpt your traffic, poof, no more problems.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633373 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:35:30 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633302 amungus : ok, you got me. sorry. so I guess my main point is more along the line that other things besides voice need it. that isp's should be able to handle it. and that one should not be having to pay extra money in order to use it.

granted, I also think in the back of my head, that phone through internet has a long way to go before being nearly as reliable as plain ol' telephone service.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633302 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:27:05 EDT Re: crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633248 TKJunkMail :
said by amungus See Profile :

a packet is a packet is a packet people,
No, it isn't. There are file download packets, and browsing packets, and then there are real-time packets that can't be delayed and need QOS guarantees to work - like voice conversations.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633248 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:21:40 EDT crooks http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633188 amungus : those crooks just don't want to admit that their network isn't all that...

a packet is a packet is a packet people, and having "quality" service is what you should have to begin with. so are they saying that 'quality' on anything else that requires decent latency also sucks without this mafia fee? If I were a gamer with this ISP, I'd be furious.

Idiots. Why did they buy fancy new routers/switches etc in the first place if they don't expect people to use them? I really don't get it. This is just stuck on stupid. As ISP's, they should be giving the BEST that they can no matter what people use it for.

What about Net2Phone? What about games like WOW, secondlife, Everquest, Counterstrike.................
What about video? What about MOVIE services? What about streaming music services? What the heck do they expect their users to use the internet for? email? Got news for you morons, this is 2006, and people don't just chat or send/recieve the occasional email.

Maybe they should've just never bough any new upgrades to any of their equipment and sold dialup cable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15633188 Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:12:59 EDT