 haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA | UGH>>>>What? If 99% of my online experience is downloading, and they are disrupting the connections for the downloads....exactly how does that improve my expirence? | |
|
 | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: UGH>>>>What? said by haplo2112  :If 99% of my online experience is downloading, and they are disrupting the connections for the downloads....exactly how does that improve my expirence? From what I've seen in Tulsa, downloads aren't impacted much, at least for BitTorrent. Just don't try seeding.  | |
|
| | haplo2112
join:2003-05-12
Charlton, MA | Re: UGH>>>>What? Thats useful...no seeding and most torrents will cut you off pretty damned quick!
Yeah I saw the wink... | |
|
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: UGH>>>>What? You can upload while you download, just not seed.  | |
|
| | | | 
Smokey
I killed the Wabbit
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs: | Re: UGH>>>>What? I had noticed that last spring, and it is one of many reasons why I don't use bittorent anymore to send videos or large files out. Kinda sucks that Cox does this, but at least they are honest about it.
--
Para Bellum!! | |
|
| | | | | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Why not Slingbox next? ...anybody? | |
|
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | Is Cox the cable hero? Of all the complains, I think very few go against Cox. I currently have Cox and FiOS. It is nice that Cox does respond to the community on these issues and isn't seen as a "liar" like Comcast.
The only one I ever had was the issue related to IRC server redirection in order to "cleanup" IRC net bots. No Cox employee in the form ever responded. As far as I'm concerned that was poor practice, though I'm sure they still do it. Another reason I'm happy to have Verizon FiOS in my area. However, once I get the first correct bill from Verizon (an issue I never had a problem with using Cox) I'll probably be terminating my Cox service.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
| 
Davebo
join:2002-11-19
Canada
| Re: Is Cox the cable hero? said by Lumberjack :It is nice that Cox does respond to the community on these issues and isn't seen as a "liar" like Comcast. Awesome for you!
It still doesn't affect the bottom line, which is Cox, like Comcast, are denying users the freedom to use their bandwidth. | |
|
| 
econman
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Carrollton, TX | Don't feel bad. Verizon has billing issues, espcially on autopay methods.. The good news is once you do get them ironed out, it's smooth from there. | |
|
|
| 
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: BS said by gatorkram :Cox already has usage caps for uploading and downloading. It seems to me, if they need to block uploading, then their caps are to high, and we know why they are... Got to keep up appearances, and look competitive with all the other companies caps, which also seem to be to high, as they are blocking too. So, you'd feel better about it if they dropped the caps down to minimal amount to compensate for bandwidth hogs?
I'm not on Cox, but ANY traffic shaping, on ANY ISP, sucks, if you ask me. I didn't and wouldn't ask to pay for that service!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ | |
|
| | |
| | | tobycable1
join:2003-02-20
Pass Christian, MS
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: BS I personally can't see how it'd be profitable to give users that much bandwidth when colocating a server for 10megabits costs well over $100-$200/month, how would you get 15/15 for $69 (which seems to be the price in this area)?
I saw some 30/5's, but apparently I wasn't paying attention very well when checking a bunch of houses for fios potential (as I'm gonna rent a place in the area), as most seem to max at 15/2 or 15/15. | |
|
| | 
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
3 edits | Huh? They aren't throttling just the "hogs". They hammering all of the users regardless of how much they're using.
And you can't be a bandwidth hog if you have caps. That's the whole point of having the monthly caps. Cox should enforce the cap on anyone they feel is causing them the trouble instead of stopping customers from using legitimate services because Cox is unable to supply the speeds they advertise. | |
|
| | | 
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs: | Re: BS I agree with you. Seems to me, they can't support the caps they already have in place. Smoke and mirrors.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by DotMac : Cox is unable to supply the speeds they advertise. The saddest part is that Cox has no problem supplying the speeds they advertise to most of their customers. (at least in the markets in which I'm a customer) They never have, in my experience, although I've read of problems in some markets prior to my becoming a customer there. | |
|
| | | |
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: BS P2P users are having problems getting the speeds they advertise.
Cox implementing this...another layer of network management implies that if they don't, they won't be able to supply advertised speeds. Otherwise why do it? | |
|
hitman_001
Premium
join:2006-11-20
Laredo, TX
| Guess its time for a lil, What comes around goes around. Since alot of folks have been preaching it to the people in rural areas.. If you dont like it.. MOVE or BUILD YOUR OWN isp. Its capitalism at its finest! 
--
Hn7000s Small Office plan/.74m dish & 1Watt Trans on Satmex 5 Signal: 86/Win XP Pro SP2/P4 3gig, 2Gigs Ram, Radeon X1300 500meg video | |
|
| |
JasonD
@comcast.net
 from:
LiamJunket
| Bittorrent is dying I feel for the 2% of you who use it legally, but there's no free lunch here. The developers of legal software are going to have to find other non-cost shifting methods to distribute their products. To hell with the other 98%. | |
|
| |
| 
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | Maybe they should pay an ISP or hoster to deliver their software, products, services vs. leaching off others to distribute it. | |
|
| | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Re: Bittorrent is dying Yeah, who cares about the WOW users who just want to get their updates in a reasonable amount of time.
Sony could certainly use some BT love, too. Release day firmware downloads are sloooow. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Bittorrent is dying That was kind of lackey's point. Blizzard should have download servers for their patches, just as they do with Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc. games. Blizzard (and other similar companies) are increasing their bottom line by offloading their bandwidth requirements elsewhere. Ironic that capitalism is ok for them, but not for the telecom providers absorbing their hits. | |
|
| | | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Bittorrent is dying said by openbox9 :That was kind of lackey's point. Blizzard should have download servers for their patches, just as they do with Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc. games. Blizzard (and other similar companies) are increasing their bottom line by offloading their bandwidth requirements elsewhere. Ironic that capitalism is ok for them, but not for the telecom providers absorbing their hits. They do have non-BT servers, they're just slow to the point of being practically useless (at least that's what I've been told by my WOW-playing friends)
There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. It's a rare site that can sustain 12Mbps in a single TCP stream, regardless of their upstream bandwidth. If the content is popular, you can forget about it.
Cox has published transfer limits. If they need to deal with abusers, they can easily do it through that mechanism. There's no need to make it impossible for their end users to use BT for distributing their own content. (especially the ones who pay for a business connection)
My point is that BT and other p2p apps do two important things: They make it feasible to distribute popular content at the speed which users demand, and they allow you and I to distribute large files economically, thus broadening the realm of free (video) speech to the little people.
Also, it allows me to download the latest Knoppix (or Backtrack, or any of the other several distros I keep up with) faster than "slower than molasses." I always go to the torrent first, because 99% of the time the torrent will be faster, over 75% of the time more than 4 times as fast.
I like to be part of the swarm that allows myself and others to distribute them that quickly. What infuriates me is that I can't do that anymore, even from my colo'd server, at least if I'm trying to distribute to a Cox user. My colo provider has an OC-12 to Cox. I used to think that was a good thing. Now I can't seed to Cox users from my server because the morons are pulling the same tricks on the CBS connections as they are the residential HFC-based accounts.
I'd be all for it if Cox were merely attempting to push clients towards preferring to download from other Cox users. I'd be just fine with them using QoS to reduce the priority of BT and other p2p traffic so that it would mainly take up "extra" room.
Hell, I'd even be fine with them doing exactly what they're doing to enforce their TOS regarding servers. I wouldn't like it, but I consider that to be well within their rights. Home users are contractually barred from running servers. In most markets $10-$20 a month can solve that problem for the end user.
The way they've implemented it, however, is literally blocking all of their customers (including business connections on fiber) from using BT as a distribution method for their own content. That's stupid, in that it means they'll just be paying for more outbound bits than they otherwise would, but it's also not supportable contractually.
They broke my network by doing this. I'm back to distributing updates slowly to half my network hardware (the half on Cox), thanks to them. If they hadn't messed with CBS customers, they at least wouldn't have made more work for me. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Bittorrent is dying said by wierdo :There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. Providers such as Akamai seem to be able to.said by wierdo :I always go to the torrent first, because 99% of the time the torrent will be faster, over 75% of the time more than 4 times as fast. And that's the crux of the argument. Providers/Distributors are disseminating their products by transferring the cost to another entity. I believe we will continue to see crackdowns on distribution mechanisms like this. ISPs have no desire to continue eating the costs to save other business models money. Yes, I realize that statement will bring out the "but I already pay for my 15/2 connection and I should be able to exploit it to its fullest 100% of the time" crowd, but there is no way that a shared environment such as an ISP's network will be able to support the exponential growth of the P2P world...at least at the costs that consumers are paying today.said by wierdo :Now I can't seed to Cox users from my server because the morons are pulling the same tricks on the CBS connections as they are the residential HFC-based accounts. Are you saying that your colo box is in a Cox datacenter? Why aren't you able to seed from your colo box?said by wierdo :I'd be just fine with them using QoS to reduce the priority of BT and other p2p traffic so that it would mainly take up "extra" room. This is the correct and fair approach IMO. ISPs should relegate the priority of P2P applications/protocols to that of ICMP, or lower. It saves the ISPs' networks and still allows for the P2P users to be able to fully use their applications within the constraints of the network by allowing for enjoyment and usability for all customers. | |
|
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Bittorrent is dying said by openbox9 :said by wierdo :There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. Providers such as Akamai seem to be able to. Exactly, pay up for a Content Distribution Network (CDN). It has distributed peers in datacenters all over the real world and internet backbone world. There is no legitimate reason for any for-profit company to distribute ANYTHING through BT. Corporations are simply saving on their bottom line by using BT and making users pay for their downloads in exchange for "upload money". | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| "There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. It's a rare site that can sustain 12Mbps in a single TCP stream, regardless of their upstream bandwidth. If the content is popular, you can forget about it."
It's statements like this that show you have a lack of knowledge in how to properly set up a distro system.
Please tell me.. Microsoft, of all people, has a HUGE pull on their updates.. and exactly how do they keep up with it?
There are many ways.. load balancing,.. mirroring,.. just to name a couple. Like it was said earlier - and I've said the same thing, this is one business offing their burden on to another. This is offloading the file delivery from the internet to the last mile providers.
This isn't P2P usage when a "business" offs it's distro on to end users to do their dirty work, which by the way, they are collecting money from you all.
If anything, if I still played WOW, which I don't, I'd be VERY upset ... I'm paying Blizzard to deliver me the goods, and instead, I'm being made to get it from somewhere else.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Bittorrent is dying Ms uses akimai (spelling ?).
They own more data centers all over the world then any one. Their clustering is second to none and they serve up more bandwidth then any other company can provide. And you pay drastically to use it.
Again this comes to something that is never answered. If I pay for a cable connection why can't i use it for what i want ? This is a major reason why I am trying to get away from Comcast. I am very sick of using work arounds to be able to seed out my code changes for all of 12 hours a week.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Bittorrent is dying said by BosstonesOwn :Again this comes to something that is never answered. If I pay for a cable connection why can't i use it for what i want ? What a lot of people don't understand is that this is nothing new. There has been network restrictions or acceptable use going all the way back to dial up and even Prodigy.
If the network service you are buying a connection from doesn't want the kind of applications running on it then that's their right to set the limitations. Your entire remedy is to not do business with them.
Dial up had a few strict limitations as well.
1) No two people can connect to the network at one time. (ie: one dial up connection at a time)
2) You could not use programs to keep the connection alive. It would kick you off if you were connected with too long of an activity. This one is of particular interest because if I paid for a connection to the internet, why couldn't I leave it on all the time? After all, I paid for an unlimited use service, right?
3) Some services would FORCE you to log off after a certain period of time such as 4 or 6 hours in the day.
Terms and AUPs have been around for years. The same thing could be said about your question... If I pay for a car, why can't I drive it as fast as I want? If I pay for a seat on an airplane in coach, why shouldn't I be able to get on the plane when First class does? After all, I purchased a seat like everyone else. (My remedy - I only fly first now) The can set the rules and you either live by them, or go to the competition and give them your money.
To be honest - that's why..
Would it be nice to be able to use the connection full balls to the wall? Sure.. but the fact is, the internet isn't ready to have everything and the kitchen sink thrown to it. So, until it's time and they are ready, they will continue to manage the network to give everyone the best possible experience.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
Cowboy86
join:2004-02-06
Franklinville, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
1 edit | Well... Won't this actually increase network traffic? In my personal experiences with Comcast it does. It just keeps trying to download the file. You could be stuck at 80% for days when your file is only 10MB and it says 900MB downloaded. Hence, shutting up their "network management" defense. | |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Funny.. They claim to not be blocking p2p traffic for uploads or downloads. They are 100% blocking BT seeds in both Oklahoma and San Diego. What's worse is that they're blocking BT seeding on business connections that specifically allow servers. | |
|
| BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: Funny.. said by wierdo :They claim to not be blocking p2p traffic for uploads or downloads. They are 100% blocking BT seeds in both Oklahoma and San Diego. What's worse is that they're blocking BT seeding on business connections that specifically allow servers. Because their gear doesn't separate the connections at all , but they want you to believe they do. It's all a crock they are trying to sell you something that they can make more money off of.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
 ·AtlasOK
| Wholesale too? Doesn't really negatively affect me as I run no P2P apps. But I wonder if their traffic "management" also affects their non-consumer accounts.
For example, I use a WISP who contracts with Cox to connect to their network. Thus everywhere on the Internet, I show to be a Cox subscriber with one of their IPs. I wonder if my traffic would get "managed" (even if my actual ISP does none) should I decide to run P2P for some reason? | |
|
| wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| Re: Wholesale too? said by powerhog :Doesn't really negatively affect me as I run no P2P apps. But I wonder if their traffic "management" also affects their non-consumer accounts. For example, I use a WISP who contracts with Cox to connect to their network. Thus everywhere on the Internet, I show to be a Cox subscriber with one of their IPs. I wonder if my traffic would get "managed" (even if my actual ISP does none) should I decide to run P2P for some reason? I can't say for certain CBS is being "throttled" in Oklahoma, but it certainly is in San Diego. Thus far, the blocking has not reached the Kansas market (which includes NW Arkansas, where I have another CBS account, although that one is HFC based, not fiber). | |
|
| | 
The Beer
I Love It When A Plan Comes Together
Premium
join:2001-07-24
Omaha, NE
clubs: | Re: Wholesale too? Yea I wonder if it is in Omaha too.
We have seen some real strange stuff on CBS lately.
Not P2P however odd routes and connections just going whack in general.
Not good. | |
|
|
| fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: World of Warcraft Updater My recommendation is to do business with a company, (wow) that takes your money and delivers the content through their own channels. If people would use P2P to share their OWN stuff with others (as it was intended) then I'd be more upset that ISPs are throttling. However, right now, you are paying companies like Blizzard AND being used (some) to sent out their distro..
If anything, I'd put pressure on the places you are spending your money to run their own data centers... after all, that's what you are paying THEM for.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | 
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs: | Re: World of Warcraft Updater Blizzard does offer their own, and it works rather efficiently , better than most of the p2p clients put together whenever I do an update. | |
|
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: World of Warcraft Updater Then it's not P2P... This is where the terms get very muddy and gray.. if the provider is running the network data and servers themselves, then they are a provider.. not exactly the P2P that everyone here is complaining about.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | | |
MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| Yes, this sucks. unfortunately my options are AT&T FTTP or Cox.
AT&T gives the NSA wholesale access to their network...no thanks. AT&T FTTP is also much slower.
Cox messes with P2P and is not quite as reliable as AT&T FTTP was. That being said, I can download from newsgroups at over 2MB/sec, blowing my 12mbps cap out of the water...
For now, advantage=Cox.
That doesn't change the fact that this traffic prioritization is wrong.
--
MCSE, ACSA, and a lot more | |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
1 edit | Short-sighted Eliminating e-donkey will drive those users to harder to trace, semi-private servers,like they are already doing.
It will make file sharers into smarter, harder to catch criminals, instead of just common thieves, as they learn to circumvent the riaa and thier partners.
Indescriminate blocking, without identifying if the blocked file is legal or copyrighted material is wrong and the FCC should take action against them.
Also, this is going to hurt legal p2p applications more than the pirates, cause they can just zip or rar the files to stop the blocking.
This type of action is specifically against network neutrality policy and common carrier status.
"An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate"
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
--
‘Do ye, quieting in your bosoms your strong hearts,
Who of many good things have had your fill even to surfeit,
With what is moderate nourish your mighty desire; for neither will
We yield, nor shall you have all else as you wish.’
Solon | |
|
| 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Shortsited said by gaforces :This type of action is specifically against network neutrality policy and common carrier status. "An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate" » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier Except cable companies do not have common carrier status. At least they don't yet anyway. But FCC's Martin is trying to make that happen at AT&T's encouragement:
»avid.broadcastnewsroom.com/artic···d=230984
FCC's authority to regulate cable under the 70/70 test would not be impaired by another provision in cable law that says no "cable system shall be subject to regulation as a common carrier or utility by reason of providing any cable service."
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Shortsited According to that 23 year old cable law, they became common carriers after they passed the 70/70 mark. FCC is just slow to act on it. | |
|
| | |
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Shortsited said by gaforces :According to that 23 year old cable law, they became common carriers after they passed the 70/70 mark. FCC is just slow to act on it. Martin says they passed the 70/70 mark. Others says they haven't. | |
|
| | | | 
Dan
Hamilton Tigers?
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Eh? | Re: Shortsited Not "OTHERS" but big Cable Co. | |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
4 edits | Lawyer double-speak said by Cox hack :
Cox does not prohibit the use of file-sharing services for uploads or downloads, or discriminate against any specific services in any way.
Throttling IS discriminating.
Network neutrality legislation is needed NOW.
What's next...throttling when sending email attachments? Throttling of SlingBox?
And with Cox the network management argument is bullsh!t. They have clearly stated monthly upload caps. If the upload caps they state are too high, lower them and enforce them. | |
|
| 
Madcap
Reformed Forum Troll
Premium
join:2004-06-26
Kenosha, WI
clubs: | Re: Lawyer double-speak I hear you. But in 5 hours I'm going to get woken up from my drug induced dreaming to a ranting 27 year old demanding I explain throttling to her .. again. | |
|
| | 
logic1977
Premium
join:2001-02-11
Tucker, GA
| Re: Lawyer double-speak I'd bet my last dollar that this type of blocking will not go away even if net neutrality legislation is passed. The cable & telco companies lobbying efforts ar emuch too large to just get a carte blanche law passed saying all traffic is equal. Besides all traffic isn't equal and anyone who has tried to support a large network knows that.
I see a lot of people talking about they don't need to block p2p because they have caps. Do you think if thier caps were working they would spend millions of dollars to install the hardware needed to do this type of traffic blocking?
Caps don't work in all cases. Sometimes you can have just a couple of really casual p2p users hitting the dslam or node at the same time and wreck havoc. That may be the along downloading they do all month, but if it happens at the right time you are disrupting service for dozens of other people.
Its fairly simple, let's say COX expects 10% return on thier network, but they see that based on current user patterns they need to buy more bandwidth. They can do this at thier own expense, say pay for the upgrades and live with 8% returns, or they find out where all the traffic is coming from, and BOOM you find out that 5% of your users take up almost 80% of your bandwidth and the number one thing is p2p file sharing.
So rather than spend $$$$$$$ to buy more bandwidth you spend $$ to block the heavy bandwidth using apps and you get to keep your 10%.
What else do you expect them to do? | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: Lawyer double-speak Even if that law is passed, who other than a US Federal Attorney General will file charges? If the legal system won't accept any cases based on the law, is there still a law? | |
|
hahahaha839082
@centurytel.com
| Do you notice something here? That pretty much all of this traffic blocking, shaping, and so on, are coming from CABLE companies? You get what you pay for with cable, shared lines, restricted access, lack off a proper connection, extremely bad customer service, sheesh, the almighty dollar really speaks loudly but yet people complain. Sad, really. | |
|
| unoriginal
join:2000-07-12
San Diego, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Do you notice something here? For some people, like my inlaws for example, can only get cable internet service. They live too far from their CO to get dsl and dial up just plain sucks. Unless you want to go with satellite service instead sometimes cable is the only choice you have. | |
|
Lithicus
@dendrite.com
|  Ridiculous
| |
|
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Cox is doing this to favor THEIR VOIP service... said by qworster :Rather then improving their networks so they can TAKE the additional traffic that VOIP produces, instead they "double dip" and take AWAY from their Internet customers. What port does digital phone use?
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
4 edits | Kick it up a notch Just to make this more controversial, pointing out the fact that the Christian Coalition is working with Cox to block a portion of peoples internet experience, maybe a new title and people will digg it ...
The CC says they want to stop the kiddie porn, despite the fact that they dont know which files being blocked are offending material (or if they are at all.) E-donkey had servers named the devil and satan, hmmmm... | |
|
toadlife
Premium
join:2004-05-03
Coalinga, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
1 edit | This is not about bandwidth There is a great article posted by George Ou about a week ago over at ZDNet about Comcast, (and now Cox's) "war" on bittorrent which sheds some light on the reason why they are resorting to these strange methods.
It's more about contention, than bandwidth. The cable node technology, being the archaic shared medium that it is, simply can't handle all the connection requests that bittorrent clients make and receive.
I encourage everyone here that wants Comcast's head on a stick to read the article I linked to above. | |
|
| Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: This is not about bandwidth said by toadlife :There is a great article posted by George Ou about a week ago over at ZDNet about Comcast, (and now Cox's) "war" on bittorrent which sheds some light on the reason why they are resorting to these strange methods. It's more about contention, than bandwidth. The cable node technology, being the archaic shared medium that it is, simply can't handle all the connection requests that bittorrent clients make and receive. I encourage everyone here that wants Comcast's head on a stick to read the article I linked to above. Thanks for the link. I manage networks myself(not at typical consumer level) and had overlooked a few points in there. Mostly the point they use hub topology prone to RTS collisions from the cable modems. I have had the luxury of dedicated pipes to switches myself. In this case, I guess resetting TCP connections is the only way. It might not even negatively impact BT if their threshold is reasonable and users set their connection limits to reasonable levels. The tricky part is the hogs might kill other BT users, since the threshold is probably still a global scheme. If they could run software that tracks stats per IP, then it might have no impact on anyone. Such software does exist but is very resource intensive and unnecessary on switched networks. It seems it would be useful in the RTS scheme though. Try testing lower connections and using at off-peak times maybe. I'd like to hear the results. Many people saturate their connections with peers to the point it would kill their performance on an unmanaged line, even. | |
|
Anonguy
@pacbell.net | Isn't packet spoofing / header forging against federal law? Isn't an ISP forging the source of a packet a violation of federal law? It's falsifying and concealing the origin of the transmission and could be considered wire fraud. | |
|
| Hoss
Sauters A Walrus
join:2000-10-05
Tulsa, OK | Re: Isn't packet spoofing / header forging against federal law? That's stretching it a little bit. I don't use the torrents; never have. I can't say I'm surprised.
I have some empathy for those that use the torrents to dl WOW and distros of Linux. Others, I have one word for ya:
Usenet. | |
|
| | 
rogunit
Uhhh, Sir?
Premium
join:1999-09-18
Phoenix, AZ | Re: Isn't packet spoofing / header forging against federal law? Yeppirs! www.newsleecher.com has a newsreader that can search all of usenet. Don't find what you're lookin for? Request it! | |
|
TripmasterG
join:2004-01-01
Centreville, VA
| Still Not a Problem For Me So much overreaction eh? I am using bittorrent right this second and the only (potential) change I see is that it takes longer for the upload speed to reach the cap I have set in Azureus. | |
|
| dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Wheeling, IL | Re: Still Not a Problem For Me you do realize that the reason for upload is that you're only able to connect to encrypted peers, and that your download isn't affected in the first place? | |
|
cajundsl
cajundsl Denver Qwest
join:2003-02-05
Denver, CO
·Qwest.net
| I use Dish for TV, my telco for ALL comms.... so Cox and Comcast's policies impact me not at all.
Qwest provides decent broadband service at a decent price, so I'm a happy camper. At some point or other Qwest will enter the city-wide (Metro) wireless Internet market now presently dominated by Ricochet Networks, Sprint and AT&T but until then I'm happy to provide my own wi-fi at home and when I absolutely HAVE to go online away from home use either my Ricochet card or find a coffee shop/BK/McDonald's/whatever with a wi-fi point of presence.
And eventually Sirius and the other satellite radio guys will make streaming satellite wi-fi cheap enough to be practical, and that'll be that. That'll be the point at which the nomadic lifestyle will truly be do-able, with digital mail, TV/radio and all the rest will be accessible and the wife and I able to retire on the road. The timing looks good for it to happen when we're ready to cut loose. | |
|
| lithicus0
join:2006-06-30
Chesapeake, VA
| Re: I use Dish for TV, my telco for ALL comms.... said by cajundsl :so Cox and Comcast's policies impact me not at all. Qwest provides decent broadband service at a decent price, so I'm a happy camper. At some point or other Qwest will enter the city-wide (Metro) wireless Internet market now presently dominated by Ricochet Networks, Sprint and AT&T but until then I'm happy to provide my own wi-fi at home and when I absolutely HAVE to go online away from home use either my Ricochet card or find a coffee shop/BK/McDonald's/whatever with a wi-fi point of presence. And eventually Sirius and the other satellite radio guys will make streaming satellite wi-fi cheap enough to be practical, and that'll be that. That'll be the point at which the nomadic lifestyle will truly be do-able, with digital mail, TV/radio and all the rest will be accessible and the wife and I able to retire on the road. The timing looks good for it to happen when we're ready to cut loose. How does this relate to Cox jinxing internet experience? | |
|
|
|
|
Cox Confirms P2P Throttling
·
·