useless
join:2006-07-16 | reply to ronpin
Re: Here we go again-ATT Routers causing HIGH MI Pings
Glad to hear it.
I liked how you lump crappy DNS service in with a NN discussion. About par for the course. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to useless
Verizon's FiOS is really the only thing that has ever gotten Charter's attention. It's the only reason some of us can now get 10mbs. Low latency is also a feature of FiOS -- so I'll give up any other approach to questioning "fair latency" -- and allow the 800lb FiOS gorilla to continue forcing competition. Hey -- I'm OK with the QoS, spotty DNS and all, for now.
--
America has been hijacked by selfish nationalist corporate pigs. The whole world hates us now. Have a nice day. |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16
| reply to ronpin
My denials? LOL!
I posted the documented cases of anti NN behavior. You are posted about someone providing a service you dont want to pay for. Like saying airline tickets cost too much, the government should step in because its cheaper to drive but i dont want to and shouldnt have to pay to fly.
Maybe if you feel there is a problem here, you should take Charter to court? Let us know when you win, until then you are only posting flamebait. (you would lose miserably, so instead you spam FUD in forums)
I think its fair to ask how come no one has sued? You can only answer with 1 example, which I provided you.
Secondly, if game rail is a fiber customer, they could very easily provide a lower latency route by changing yours. Why dont you run gamerail and sniffer and see? Someone probably already has, and realized it has nothing to with NN. That is such a crappy example of anti NN behavior, further outlining your lack of understanding.
»www.killernic.com/KillerNic/
You have to buy that card to get lower pings. They obviously have a deal where they pay money and charter screws you over if you dont have that card. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to useless
Your denials seem a bit desperate. You most certainly have not answered any questions other than offer the original definition of NN. I already offered that "this" is a new "twist" on NN. Not NN as we knew it.
Unless Charter has purchased entirely isolated local loops and tier1 backbones for higher priority customers like GameRail -- regular customer must now necessarily get lower priority -- when contention does occur (prime-time). That is a fact.
Further, it is fair to ask how far this might go -- it is a slippery slope once ISP's start to segregate traffic based on money. This is a fundamental shift. Before, a packet was a packet was a packet.
Most folks recognize a deliberate smear/jeer tactic as a defensive move. Why so cagegy?
(I hope Charter does well -- but fairly to all concerned)
--
America has been hijacked by selfish nationalist corporate pigs. The whole world hates us now. Have a nice day. |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16
| reply to useless
Also, do not get me wrong. I agree with Google, Yahoo, whoever else. The problem is we are trying to put a law in effect for a problem that has not happened. IF someone thinks there traffic is getting throttled, or they have been asked to pay or it would get throttled, it would have gone to court and you would have heard about it.
Ever noticed how we normally get laws to prevent things that have occurred we do not like? That includes every just about over other law. NN is a typical example of the Democrats being bought out by corporations, and legislating so they can continue to get paid. NN is anti free market, until ISPs start participating in anti NN behavior. Then regulation would be required. Until then, it is hogwash |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16
| reply to ronpin
1. I answered this.
2. Makes no sense.
3. Because you do not understand the issue. How much money does Google make, compared to you or I?
4. No, it is very simple. Google, et al, made this up because they fear they are going to start getting charged more. Since it has only been documented 1 time in America, concerning a very small company, it remains simple. This is legislation to prevent something that has not happened yet. IF you think that is good policy, that is your choice. I happen to think it is a crappy policy, which is what it boils down to.
We already know the politicians do not understand the internet, so it is confusing to me as to what basis we are getting NN legislation. I guess Google's lobby has gotten pretty big these days. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to MI_user
Fascinating response ('looks I did touch a nerve).
1. How do you explain how one entity can get higher priority -- without necessarily reducing priority for others?
2. How can that not be a slippery-slope?
3. Why am I not allowed to ask the question?
4. Is this getting complicated?
(BTW -- I'm a very contented 10mbs VoIP subscriber -- I just want to keep it that way)
--
America has been hijacked by selfish nationalist corporate pigs. The whole world hates us now. Have a nice day. |
|
useless
join:2006-07-16
| reply to MI_user
Interesting video, interesting post about NN. Completely offbase, like most of the NN concerned posts in here.
A company providing a service to lower pings. Consider how they would do that for 1 second. How exactly can you lower your latency from point A to point B? Nothing to do with NN, at all. If it was, your latency would be ~1000ms, not going from 80 to 60ms.
The anon MI_user has it correct, lack of understanding of NN has all these asisine theories popping up. If you understood what it was, you might be able to make an intelligent post regarding it.
Do you think that your gaming anywhere near a big enough percentage of the traffic for anyone to consider it in the grand scheme of things? Obviously you do, a perfect example of the pro-NN media and the stupidity of the people they are trying to trick in thinking it concerns them.
Here is the site with all the FUD:
»www.savetheinternet.com/=threat
Here are the 4 documented abuses. 2 are in Canada, 1 you never heard of the ISP, and the other is AOL, which, if you are using AOL then you deserve it(its not even related NN, they have to include it so they can have another example). Until there is something substantial here in America, any NN post is equivalent to an idiotic rant and/or flamebait. In fact, I wish they wouldnt let NN crap in here, since Charter is in no way affiliated with a NN case.
* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
* Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme. |
|
MI_user
@charter.com
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin  :What about Charter's VoIP getting more priority than Vonage? It's not happening. We've covered this topic numerous times.
said by ronpin :(did I strike a nerve?) no, we have become use to your attempts at starting flame wars around here, with nothing to go on, but tin foil theories. |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
1 edit | reply to ronpin
(did I strike a nerve?) |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
4 edits | reply to Curado Kev
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJab6eN6aVw
So better ping times are now a marketable item? re: »Will You Pay $15 More A Month For A Lower Ping?
Doesn't this mean that routing rules are already in place to "prioritize" certain IP's/MACs? Doesn't that mean the rest of us will, by definition, effectively get "less" priority?
I'm all for the Free Market but this sounds like a new twist on the Net Neutrality thing. It's not AT&T milking Google. It's any provider milking anyone on the network for preferential treatment.
So, how can we know if our bad ping incidents are just congestion or deliberate policy? Is there a "ping-time-ceiling" policy anywhere that can be used in a router rule? (i.e. no customer should suffer more than 60ms ping time) Is good network latency becoming a Moneyed-Class issue? Maybe it should be -- but eventually we'll all need to know what's happening. A maximum latency guarantee will be required -- since "best-effort" is apparently now a commodity.
EDIT: Slippery-Slope? not just an "express lane" but a "break-in-line" lane? What about Charter's VoIP getting more priority than Vonage? Charter's [future] ipVoD over Youtube? Does "anti-trust/anti-competitive" have any meaning here?.
--
America has been hijacked by selfish nationalist corporate pigs. The whole world hates us now. Have a nice day. |
|
keybrdmssiah
join:2007-01-29
MI
1 edit | reply to Curado Kev
Thanks anon_admin. Tonight pings were great all night! Thanks a lot : ) |
|
Curado Kev
Premium
join:2003-12-17
Portage, MI
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Curado Kev
Balance traffic - Cool  ) Makes sense since it happens every couple of months.
BTW, my pings have been awesome since you did that
Thanks !!!
Kev |
|
Anon_Admin
@charter.com
| reply to Curado Kev
said by Curado Kev :Hey anon - Can you tell us what the problem is ? In some detail and why does it happen at all ?? Does charter owe ATT money for using their routers ? Just guessing ..LOL Just needed to balance some traffic. Charter and ATT are getting along just fine. We don't owe ATT any more cash than we already pay them. Glad you are back to smooth sailing. |
|
keybrdmssiah
join:2007-01-29
MI | reply to phear
Same isp, different areas and subnets |
|
phear
@charter.com
| reply to phear
Tracing route to teamisolated.nuclearfallout.net:28960 [64.158.56.56]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 7 ms 8 ms 11 ms 10.72.208.1
2 11 ms 18 ms 10 ms 172.19.69.121
3 116 ms 116 ms 115 ms 172.19.69.158
4 131 ms 142 ms 130 ms 172.19.47.142
5 126 ms 121 ms 124 ms dtrtmi1wce2-gige3-1.wcg.net [65.77.89.129]
6 135 ms 130 ms 137 ms brvwil1wcx3-pos14-1.wcg.net [64.200.210.93]
7 144 ms 137 ms 138 ms 64.200.249.190
8 131 ms 132 ms 130 ms te-4-4.car2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.68.110.37]
9 142 ms 136 ms 137 ms ae-2-52.bbr2.Chicago1.Level3.net [4.68.101.33]
10 146 ms 151 ms 146 ms as-2-0.bbr2.Washington1.Level3.net [209.247.10.1
30]
11 139 ms 140 ms 145 ms ae-11-53.car1.Washington1.Level3.net [4.68.121.8
2]
12 * * * Request timed out. |
|
phear
@charter.com
| reply to keybrdmssiah
Yeah me and stoked both have the same isp and live generally in the same area, same problem every night at about 7:45 my ping jumps from 30m/s to 150m/s
Like he also said its been like this for awhile and its impossible to play at any level of competitive level, non the less what me and brian(stoked) play at :/ |
|
keybrdmssiah
join:2007-01-29
MI | reply to Curado Kev
Someone needs to help me out  |
|
Curado Kev
Premium
join:2003-12-17
Portage, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Curado Kev
Thanks...
About 15 minutes ago, it was 8 ms for first hops and then jumped to 60ms at ATT routers.
Been better now, thanks anon charter admin stud dude or dudette 
Hey anon - Can you tell us what the problem is ? In some detail and why does it happen at all ?? Does charter owe ATT money for using their routers ? Just guessing ..LOL
CKev |
|
Anon_Admin
@charter.com | reply to Curado Kev
Kev, you should see an improvement. Happi, you are a tool |
|
