 DaneJasperSonic.NetPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:7 | Results are bogus We serve about 50,000 DSL users, and run our own network. We don't do any blocking or other odd stuff - just straight connections. (No PPPoE even - real bridged IPs, dynamic or static)
But, we are on their list. Thus, I think their testing methods are totally cracked. FYI!
-Dane Jasper
Sonic.net |
|
| That project is BS, plain and simple. They have no mechanism to determine why the test failed. A misconfigured router, company firewall, or even norton could cause this test to fail. All they are doing is matching up their fails with the whois on the IP, then falsely accusing the ISP of wrong doing. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to DaneJasper
said by DaneJasper:But, we are on their list. Thus, I think their testing methods are totally cracked. FYI! I don't see SONIC.NET on their list... and you are one of the greatest ISPs in the world. Your user base is more technical than most - it wouldn't surprise me to see some user-generated noise in their results for SONIC.NET, but they have not concluded that your network interferes in any way.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to battleop
said by battleop:That project is BS, plain and simple. They have no mechanism to determine why the test failed. A misconfigured router, company firewall, or even norton could cause this test to fail. All they are doing is matching up their fails with the whois on the IP, then falsely accusing the ISP of wrong doing. The code is up for review. Review it.
It looks for very specific things at very specific moments, and repeats the tests.
And even if a particular installation is faulty, human beings review the data to separate noise from fact.
They have detected RSTs on 7 other ISP networks, but they've only named Comcast and Cox because the data consistently agrees across the population of tests.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
DaneJasperSonic.NetPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:7 | reply to funchords
said by funchords:said by DaneJasper:But, we are on their list. Thus, I think their testing methods are totally cracked. FYI! I don't see SONIC.NET on their list... and you are one of the greatest ISPs in the world. Your user base is more technical than most - it wouldn't surprise me to see some user-generated noise in their results for SONIC.NET, but they have not concluded that your network interferes in any way. Thanks for the comments.
Sorry, I might be mixing up these results with results from another entity which was claiming that their analysis implicated AT&T and others. Their published list included us, which pointed toward the whole method being flawed in my opinion.
-Dane |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by DaneJasper:Sorry, I might be mixing up these results with results from another entity which was claiming that their analysis implicated AT&T and others. Those were the Vuze results -- these results are very, very different.
I know that Vuze deliberated before releasing their data. They knew it would be confusing. Personally, I suspect that unique user behavior added too much noise to the data, making it difficult to draw conclusions from it. But they also were under pressure to release what they had, since the FCC chair essentially asked for the data the week before.
In the end, it was what it was -- and I would never have interpreted the data to mean that AT&T was throttling. I think that idea came from AT&T itself.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
