fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to Ikarasu
Re: hell ya.
I know plenty.. I don't need your spin.
Please.. tell me.. how does Microsoft push service packs to the number of users they do?
Those that bow to BT as the "only way" are themselves closed minded.
BT may be a protocol.. but where is the distribution model? Wake up, gamer. In all of your babble, you still didn't get a single thing.. you did, however, prove my point when you said "No only does this take stress off their 100+ servers"... that's their problem.. maybe they should buy the bandwidth and balance their load on their own back, not someone else's.
You said: You seem to be the only person with a problem with it. I suggest you go read up on it, if you care so much about blizzards practices."
Really? You are clearly out of the loop... but thanks for a good laugh before bed. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to gopnick
Thanks for the laugh.
Your focus is on the wrong area... for one, I'm a former customer.. dropped them for all their BS .. tired of their faulty patches and tired of their inability to put out a maintenance schedule that doesn't work.. tired of them allowing cheats on the system and tired of them taking away resources because of their faulty programming.
Do I work for AT&T? Give me a break.. what a total and complete moronic, stupid, idiotic come back... if you knew anything, or bothered, you'd know else wise. |
|
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
 ·ITalkBB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to fiberguy
Out of the loop?
Microsoft doesn't auto update everyone at once. Microsoft doesn't set Windows XP to not work until you update. Most Teksavvy people don't even have auto update turned on. I highly doubt Microsoft streams it's pack to 1 million users, let alone 4-5 million at once.
Whats not to get? In USAs current situation... yes, BT does bog down the network. Does it affect DSL? Not as much as cable, which is why DSL providers mainly don't mind it.
You remind me of the cable companies...
"Hey! We have 100 MB/s internet now! think of how FAST you can load webpages! /smallprint however if you go over 60 GB, which you will do in 5 mins of downloading at them speeds, you're going to get banned. It's OUR network and while we want you to believe them 100K webpages load faster on this extra expensive 100 Mb/s line, then they would on a 1 Mb/s line, the truth is we're just advertising prices to look better then the competitors!"
Your views pretty much destroy net Neutrality. First, I'm not allowed to use Bittorent.. a perfectly legal, perfectly acceptable protocol. Tomorrow... I'll be paying $5 a month more to get to google/yahoo, and all the popular sites... because hey, they're taking up too much bandwidth on the network.
10 years ago... the Internet was designed to send small messages across distances. 5 years ago, it became a nice way for multimedia. Today... VoIP, IPTV, Huge content packs... There's A LOT of changes happening, and all these cable providers citing a "Bandwidth apocalypse" about to happen, are usually the ones who are too CHEAP to upgrade their networks to fit their needs, despite making tons of profit. TONS of country's don't have a problem handling speeds and all these "apocalyptic" Bandwidth apps don't seem to be a problem to them.
Lets ban Xbox live. All the Demos/HDTV streams takes up more bandwidth then the average site. Or Apple.com/tv... How dare they stream and sell high Def TV.
As for the typical "gamer" tag you have on me. CCNA, CCNP, along with many other computer degrees defines my knowledge on the subject a lot more then "gamer" does.
Bittorrent is the fastest, most economical way to spread a file to thousands of users, once that number comes up in the millions... Bittorent beats ANY protocol at file distributing.
I pay my ISP $35 a month for 200 GB upload/download. If I want to contribute some of that bandwidth to help seed a game patch, a linux ISO, underground artists music, or millions of the other legit uses for BT... why shouldn't I be able to?
Blizzard has an option to not use their downloader. But the servers are usually bogged down and slow because of all the users getting the file. If you truly ran a data center, you'd know max speed for even 1 million + users is no wheres financially possible for a gaming company. If you want to compare to to Microsoft, a company worth 250+ Billion dollars... and then have a laugh at my comments, that's up to you.
FCC is looking into Comcasts bittorent shaping. And judging by how FCC favors the telephone co's, and screws over Cable companys every chance it gets (/tinfoil hat) I cant wait to see the outcome. |
|
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
·ITalkBB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Anyways, I'll make it simple. Answer this one question with a thought out, reasonable answer, and I'll drop the whole thing.
Say I'm a Comcast subscriber. I pay xx money, to get xx speed and xx bandwidth from them.
I then use that connection to download Linux ISOs, game patches, whatever else I find on Bittorrent legally. As long as I stay within the limits, what gives Comcast the right to throttle/limit my connection, from advertised speeds/bandwidth I already paid for?
Don't you consider that bait and switch? "Have 100 GB of bandwidth, but if you actually use it...we may throttle you!" |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits | said by Ikarasu  :Anyways, I'll make it simple. Answer this one question with a thought out, reasonable answer, and I'll drop the whole thing. Say I'm a Comcast subscriber. I pay xx money, to get xx speed and xx bandwidth from them. I then use that connection to download Linux ISOs, game patches, whatever else I find on Bittorrent legally. As long as I stay within the limits, what gives Comcast the right to throttle/limit my connection, from advertised speeds/bandwidth I already paid for? Because you hurt their network and your neighbors and Comcast said in their TOS and AUP that they have the right to manage the network for the AVERAGE good and not just you. And NOT reading the TOS or AUP is not an excuse to claim ignorance.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by TKJunkMail :Because you hurt their network and your neighbors and Comcast said in their TOS and AUP that they have the right to manage the network for the AVERAGE good and not just you. But doesn't that stem from Comcast's practices of both overselling their network capacity and failing to set concrete numbers as to what's "acceptable"? Even looking in the TOS, the best estimates you get are very, very vague.
I mean, its kinda hard to be expected to understand & obey a highway speed limit, if the limit posted simply says "Fast". |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Thaler :But doesn't that stem from Comcast's practices of both overselling their network capacity and failing to set concrete numbers as to what's "acceptable"? Even looking in the TOS, the best estimates you get are very, very vague. I mean, its kinda hard to be expected to understand & obey a highway speed limit, if the limit posted simply says "Fast". But when you are going 120 MPH(P2P] and everyone else on the Hwy is going 50, you don't need a law degree to figure out who is going "FAST".
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by TKJunkMail :But when you are going 120 MPH(P2P] and everyone else on the Hwy is going 50, you don't need a law degree to figure out who is going "FAST". I'd agree in that particular example, however, there is no visual context to bandwidth. We can't see how much traffic everyone else is generating in our node/neighborhood. I mean, it'd be hard for me as a customer to agree upon a bandwidth limit that I don't know the numbers/scope to. (which is likely why I go with my current DSL provider) |
|
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
·ITalkBB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Hm.. my reply got erased somehow. Must not have confirmed it.
As stated below you - If comcast didn't oversell their network, it wouldn't hurt it. Explain how cable companies in other Countries dont have this problem? When is the last tim Comcast upgraded their infrastructure? They have crappy lines built in right now, and instead of rectifying that situation.. they just keep selling and selling to anyone who wants cable net.
If they want so many subscribers, build a network to support it. It's like a phone company offering 1 million people a phone, but only having the capacity to service 100 thousand people at once. If comcasts network cant handle all the throughput of legal use, falling within their bandwidth limits, either upgrade the network, set lower limits, or dont take on more customers then you can handle.
Would you goto a lawfirm and take a lawyer with 20 other cases, and have him accept your case but only work 10 mins on it? Would you goto a store with 100 customers and only 1 clerk, when right next door theres 0 lines? Comcast oversold their network, They have constant slowdowns from people who use the bandwidth THEY pay for, then restrictand complain at such users, instead of rectifying the problem thats THEIR own fault.
If they want to put on bandwidth caps, fine. That's reasonable. Telling people there is a cap, but refusing to tell them what it is... isn't.
One way to get around the throttling was VPN. Another ISP saw their users using VPN to get around...so what did they do? They throttled VPN also. Another legit protocol, that many people rely on for work and other uses... throttled because it was simple to do so.
You dont seem to understand... it starts with BT, then works it way up to VPN, then whatever else they decide to do. Throttling legit protocols should NOT be allowable. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by Ikarasu :Explain how cable companies in other Countries dont have this problem? They're rather explicit about their bandwidth caps there. You buy a connection at a rated speed and are allocated so much total bandwidth per month. If you go over that, then you start paying extra for the data you download in excess. |
|
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
·ITalkBB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Which is perfectly fine.
Comcast has a bandwidth cap, if you go over it...you're suspended. Instead of throttling perfectly legit protocols, they should state a limit instead of a soft cap.
I'm perfectly fine with ISPS having limits. Mine has one, and theyre rated the #1 ISP in Canada because they have no BS support, stated caps, cheap prices if you go over that cap, ect.
I hate the practice of throttling. It may just be BT now, but if it's allowed to go on... You'll be seeing a lot of La carte internet options coming up... Access to the high bandwidth sites costing more, certain protocols being allowed/not allowed... it's all just a matter of time. |
|
