how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
992 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | who cares HOW its used.. its PAID for by me anyways. I pay $xx.xx to Teksavvy each month for a 5mbps/800kbps connection. I should be able to use that to it's full extent 100% upto the monthly cap that IVE AGREED TO.
Its like buying a car with 425hp but because of gas prices, the manufacturer electronically limits the horsepower to 25.
Heck, mazda got slammed for advertising the first RX-8 having 15 more HP (or whatever it actually was) than what the engine actually produced. the result of that was two options. 100% refund or some money back. All advertising was REVISED TO REFLECT ACTUAL POWER.
Why should telecom stuff be any different. | |
|  Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: who cares HOW its used.. its PAID for by me anyways. said by mr_hexen:I pay $xx.xx to Teksavvy each month for a 5mbps/800kbps connection. I should be able to use that to it's full extent 100% upto the monthly cap that IVE AGREED TO. That's not realistic. If you subscribe to a VOIP service with "unlimited" long distance, there's always a limit. Why? Because "unlimited" is based upon the activity of average people. For the same reason that, when you subscribe to VOIP or landline, you expect to pickup the phone and receive a dialtone. But, nobody in their right minds would expect that *everyone* in the *entire* country could pick up their phones at the same time and place a call.
It's all about average use. Down/up speeds are presented with the same expectation. I expect to get those speeds when I need them, but not continuously. Or, not if everyone at the same time needs it.
Mark | |
| | | | Re: who cares HOW its used.. its PAID for by me anyways. said by amigo_boy:said by mr_hexen:I pay $xx.xx to Teksavvy each month for a 5mbps/800kbps connection. I should be able to use that to it's full extent 100% upto the monthly cap that IVE AGREED TO. That's not realistic. If you subscribe to a VOIP service with "unlimited" long distance, there's always a limit. Why? Because "unlimited" is based upon the activity of average people. For the same reason that, when you subscribe to VOIP or landline, you expect to pickup the phone and receive a dialtone. But, nobody in their right minds would expect that *everyone* in the *entire* country could pick up their phones at the same time and place a call. It's all about average use. Down/up speeds are presented with the same expectation. I expect to get those speeds when I need them, but not continuously. Or, not if everyone at the same time needs it. Mark if a company says UNLIMITED then it should be. Otherwise, state the large limit clearly.
say a DSL provider advertises Unlimited, because, on average their user base only really uses 75gB/month.
If they determine that @ 500gB its excessive, then say in advertising its 500gB / month.
For a business model, sure its nice to say (lie) that a service is unlimited. but it's clearly devious. | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: who cares HOW its used.. its PAID for by me anyways. said by mr_hexen:if a company says UNLIMITED then it should be. Otherwise, state the large limit clearly. That ship's already left the harbor. It's well established that usage is described within the context of what's the average of most users. Nobody expected telcos to disclaim that you might not get a dial tone if everyone in the country picked up their phone at the same moment.
You're fighting an uphill battle to hold ISPs to a higher standard.
Mark | |
|
 superdogI Need A DrinkPremium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA | said by mr_hexen:I pay $xx.xx to Teksavvy each month for a 5mbps/800kbps connection. I should be able to use that to it's full extent 100% upto the monthly cap that IVE AGREED TO. Nope. If you want that kind of connectivity, then get off of your puny little consumer internet connection and buy a T1 or a T3 and start paying for a real "all you can eat" connection to the tune of maybe $350 for T1 a month to perhaps a few thousand $$ for the T3. ISP's are in business to make money and over subscription is the way they do it. There is NO WAY that you could be provided with the kind of bandwidth you are asking for when all you are paying is a mere $40 a month.
said by mr_hexen:Its like buying a car with 425hp but because of gas prices, the manufacturer electronically limits the horsepower to 25. I understand what you are trying to say, but there is no way to compare a product that you can touch and feel vs. commodities like electric or bandwidth.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net
| |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: who cares HOW its used.. its PAID for by me anyways. said by superdog:said by mr_hexen:Its like buying a car with 425hp but because of gas prices, the manufacturer electronically limits the horsepower to 25. I understand what you are trying to say, but there is no way to compare a product that you can touch and feel vs. commodities like electric or bandwidth. Actually, his car analogy is kind of good (even though he didn't intend it to be used this way). I buy a car capable of doing 120 mph. But, that doesn't mean I can drive it at those speeds anywhere, anytime I want. If I want that, I buy my own private property to build a race track. But, if I want to take advantage of shared resources (streets, freeways) I agree to hold back on all the power I bought.
Like you said, if he wants to be immune from shared concerns he can buy a T1. But, if he wants the economy of shared services, then there's an amount of realism that goes with it.
Mark | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| Re: who cares HOW its used.. its PAID for by me anyways. That an analogy would work if bandwidth and Internet connectivity were a public, rather than a private good. People are too scared to listen to Keynes nowadays (Hugo Chavez and some of his allies excepted)...They think it makes you a child-raping Stalinist or something. | |
| | | | | said by amigo_boy:said by superdog:said by mr_hexen:Its like buying a car with 425hp but because of gas prices, the manufacturer electronically limits the horsepower to 25. I understand what you are trying to say, but there is no way to compare a product that you can touch and feel vs. commodities like electric or bandwidth. Actually, his car analogy is kind of good (even though he didn't intend it to be used this way). I buy a car capable of doing 120 mph. But, that doesn't mean I can drive it at those speeds anywhere, anytime I want. If I want that, I buy my own private property to build a race track. But, if I want to take advantage of shared resources (streets, freeways) I agree to hold back on all the power I bought. Like you said, if he wants to be immune from shared concerns he can buy a T1. But, if he wants the economy of shared services, then there's an amount of realism that goes with it. Mark this Unicast UDP use is all well and fine, but when are we going to see some real innovation.
the worlds ISP have nothing to complain about as they themselves go out of their way to turn off the generic MULTICAST protocol in all their ISP grade routers and related Kit to and from the end users CPU CM kit on the other end of the wire.
turn on multicasting once again and we can finally start retro-fitting multicast DHT for all our P2p traffic.
OC the torrent coders do themselves NO favours as they could TODAY include this massive bandwidth saving Multicast DHT and related existing code and also include a generic Multicast tunnel to shove this Multicast traffic down.
»bamboo-dht.org/tutorial.html
"Marcel has also written a report about his experiences building a multicast protocol on top of Bamboo. It may also be useful for tutorial purposes.
"
»www.cdt.luth.se/~peppar/progs/mTunnel/
"The mTunnel is an application that tunnels multicast packets over an unicast UDP channel. Several multicast streams can be sent over the same tunnel while the tunnel will still only use one port. This is useful if tunneling through a firewall.
The applications primary goal is to allow for easy tunneling of multicast over for instance a modem and/or an ISDN connection.
The mTunnel has a built in Web-server allowing for easy access to information about current tunnels. This server listens by default on port 9000 on the machine where started.
The mTunnel also listens on session announcements for easier tunneling of known sessions.
"
read and use these as your basic multicast starting point to bypass the worlds antiquated ISPs that refuse to even turn on the existing IPv4/6 multicasting protocol in all their kit to YOU....
amigo_boy, regarding your private track comment above, its clear the worlds ISPs have options in that your payed for connection to your ISp of choice is in effect that very same private track, all they needed to do was buy in the existing torrent/P2p hardware caching kit so you can offer up and take your popular torrent directly to and from that local cached copy for any and all ISP vendors end users to use as their privat track as it were......
OC better use and updates of the antiquated Uncast torrent DHT code to make sure local LAN,then WAN, then ISP section ect is used far more would go a long way to helping keep most of the traffic off the long haul external pipes.
so in conclusion, its not about long term casts to the ISP
in external usage, peering to your next ISP/co-location vendor.
the worlds ISP could just spend a few quid taking the existing free java Azureus/Vuse and adding in any and all Multicast torrent/P2p capabilitys into it and giving it back to the open source , and pay someone else to add a generic Multicast tunnel that this new Multicast DHT P2p can use for any antiquated ISPs that dont see fit to just turn Multicasting back on in all their Kit to and from the end users CPE desktop CM kit....
the worlds ISPs simply dont and want turn the existing Multicast protocol back ON.
you have to wonder why that is after all this time if cost of torrent traffic is really so much that they would reather buy in expensive hardware to throttle this data traffic, rather than pay a one off payment of few quid (10K or even less per addition perhaps) to some 3rd party coders that know the torrent/P2p codebases to write and retro-fit Multicast and a genric tunnel to use it were needed TODAY. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: who cares HOW its used.. its PAID for by me anyways. said by Bar Humbug2U :
the worlds ISPs simply dont and want turn the existing Multicast protocol back ON.
No multicast=users generate more traffic and pay for it, T1 vs T3, 10 mbit vs gigabit. If you want a Multicast IP, it will cost more than unicasting the traffic on a larger pipe. ISPs laugh all the way to the bank. | |
|
|  rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA | That would especially apply for the smaller CLECs and independent ISPs that must pay huge amounts of money for a backbone. But LECs, cable Co's, etc. have much more at their disposal. They get backbone access at a fraction of the cost, or they are their own backbone.
And trunk speeds keep increasing.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. | |
| | | | said by superdog:said by mr_hexen:I pay $xx.xx to Teksavvy each month for a 5mbps/800kbps connection. I should be able to use that to it's full extent 100% upto the monthly cap that IVE AGREED TO. Nope. If you want that kind of connectivity, then get off of your puny little consumer internet connection and buy a T1 or a T3 and start paying for a real "all you can eat" connection to the tune of maybe $350 for T1 a month to perhaps a few thousand $$ for the T3. ISP's are in business to make money and over subscription is the way they do it. There is NO WAY that you could be provided with the kind of bandwidth you are asking for when all you are paying is a mere $40 a month. I never said WANT that kind of connectivity. I said I already have it. My monthly cap is 200GB. If I want unlimited I can pay $10 more per month and get TRUE unlimited.
You, have clearly been brainwashed by large telecoms who tell YOU what YOU want.
I understand oversubsription is "the way". But to UNDER provide by such a large margin where you have to forcefully slow speeds down means the telecom screwed up big time. They bet that customers would never use as much as they did and made business and CAPex expenditures to suit. They were wrong.
You are being forced to pay for their mistakes of gouging customers for years while not increasing bandwidth capacity at the same rate technology and speeds have. | |
| |  JoeG4
join:2001-12-16
945941 | said by superdog:There is NO WAY that you could be provided with the kind of bandwidth you are asking for when all you are paying is a mere $40 a month. Bull. The 2 biggest expenses that ISPs have are:
1. Advertising
2. Maintenance
If you're Comcast, AT&T, or any of the other baby bells, #2 is heavily subsidized by the government (eg, us).
So it's really just advertising revenue! | |
|
| |
|
