Can someone tell me hos Azureus on a Windows computer on my LAN might affect the amount of data downloaded via my ISP?
My son-in-law finally admitted that his son had installed Azureus on his computer while visiting a couple weeks ago. WE have a limited amount of data allowed by Wildblue, 17 gigs in a 30 day period and it is becoming a panic situation with less than 2 gigs before we hit the limit and they take action!
Can Azureus be the cause of the excessive traffic or am I looking in the wrong place. I closed the bittorrent port in the router months ago and that should still be closed ...
Presently we have his computer shut down. There's no telling what he's got on it but my daughter is threatening to put him back on dial-up! I can see a period of strife on the horizon.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
Bob Goodwin wrote:
Can someone tell me hos Azureus on a Windows computer on my LAN might affect the amount of data downloaded via my ISP?
My son-in-law finally admitted that his son had installed Azureus on his computer while visiting a couple weeks ago. WE have a limited amount of data allowed by Wildblue, 17 gigs in a 30 day period and it is becoming a panic situation with less than 2 gigs before we hit the limit and they take action!
Can Azureus be the cause of the excessive traffic or am I looking in the wrong place. I closed the bittorrent port in the router months ago and that should still be closed ...
Yes, but attempting to block bittorrent by closing a single port is doomed to failure. The client can be configured to use any port and the client simply informs the P2P network what port it will be using.
I've not had a need to block bittorrent but you will need a more sophisticated blocking mechanism.
Presently we have his computer shut down. There's no telling what he's got on it but my daughter is threatening to put him back on dial-up! I can see a period of strife on the horizon.
Ahhhh..... I assume you are paying the ISP bills, yes? If so, and you can't get cooperation from your family members then wire cutters and super glue may be your only option.
Ed Greshko wrote:
My son-in-law finally admitted that his son had installed Azureus on his computer while visiting a couple weeks ago. WE have a limited amount of data allowed by Wildblue, 17 gigs in a 30 day period and it is becoming a panic situation with less than 2 gigs before we hit the limit and they take action! Presently we have his computer shut down. There's no telling what he's got on it but my daughter is threatening to put him back on dial-up! I can see a period of strife on the horizon.
Time to delete the login profile that he was using. Maybe even format.
Ahhhh..... I assume you are paying the ISP bills, yes? If so, and you can't get cooperation from your family members then wire cutters and super glue may be your only option.
And if the above is not an option, atleast harden the system.
Ed Greshko wrote:
Bob Goodwin wrote:
Can someone tell me hos Azureus on a Windows computer on my LAN might affect the amount of data downloaded via my ISP?
My son-in-law finally admitted that his son had installed Azureus on his computer while visiting a couple weeks ago. WE have a limited amount of data allowed by Wildblue, 17 gigs in a 30 day period and it is becoming a panic situation with less than 2 gigs before we hit the limit and they take action!
Can Azureus be the cause of the excessive traffic or am I looking in the wrong place. I closed the bittorrent port in the router months ago and that should still be closed ...
Yes, but attempting to block bittorrent by closing a single port is doomed to failure. The client can be configured to use any port and the client simply informs the P2P network what port it will be using.
I've not had a need to block bittorrent but you will need a more sophisticated blocking mechanism.
Aha, therein lies my problem, all this while I had a false sense of security thinking I had thwarted previous efforts with bittorrent which Junior had installed some time ago!
Presently we have his computer shut down. There's no telling what he's got on it but my daughter is threatening to put him back on dial-up! I can see a period of strife on the horizon.
Ahhhh..... I assume you are paying the ISP bills, yes? If so, and you can't get cooperation from your family members then wire cutters and super glue may be your only option.
Yes the ISP account is mine but the house is theirs so problem solving requires some tact and finesse! I and my horses are living in their place, the horses limit my mobility considerably.
But if we have indeed located the source of the problem I think he will yield. We've had the kids computer powered off for two days and the usage still trends upward so they are probably off the hook and the finger points at the parent who ought to know better. To him the computer is an appliance much like the tv set.
If I understand what you are saying the best solution to the problem is to remove all vestiges of bittorrent from the two Windows computers and warn the Grandson not to install any software on his father's computer without my knowledge.
Thanks.
Bob Goodwin
on 9/23/2007 11:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
Bob Goodwin wrote:
Yes, but attempting to block bittorrent by closing a single port is doomed to failure. The client can be configured to use any port and the client simply informs the P2P network what port it will be using.
I've not had a need to block bittorrent but you will need a more sophisticated blocking mechanism.
Aha, therein lies my problem, all this while I had a false sense of security thinking I had thwarted previous efforts with bittorrent which Junior had installed some time ago!
Ahhhh..... I assume you are paying the ISP bills, yes? If so, and you can't get cooperation from your family members then wire cutters and super glue may be your only option.
Yes the ISP account is mine but the house is theirs so problem solving requires some tact and finesse! I and my horses are living in their place, the horses limit my mobility considerably.
But if we have indeed located the source of the problem I think he will yield. We've had the kids computer powered off for two days and the usage still trends upward so they are probably off the hook and the finger points at the parent who ought to know better. To him the computer is an appliance much like the tv set.
If I understand what you are saying the best solution to the problem is to remove all vestiges of bittorrent from the two Windows computers and warn the Grandson not to install any software on his father's computer without my knowledge.
Could be the dad too Bob. All those 'news' (CNN, MSNBC, etc) sites now offer streaming videos and those are downloaded *each* time you watch them if you chose to watch something again.
17 Gigs might sound like a lot, and for some it is quite a lot, but not for a family of 5 as you describe.
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 11:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
Bob Goodwin wrote:
Yes, but attempting to block bittorrent by closing a single port is doomed to failure. The client can be configured to use any port and the client simply informs the P2P network what port it will be using.
I've not had a need to block bittorrent but you will need a more sophisticated blocking mechanism.
Aha, therein lies my problem, all this while I had a false sense of security thinking I had thwarted previous efforts with bittorrent which Junior had installed some time ago!
Ahhhh..... I assume you are paying the ISP bills, yes? If so, and you can't get cooperation from your family members then wire cutters and super glue may be your only option.
Yes the ISP account is mine but the house is theirs so problem solving requires some tact and finesse! I and my horses are living in their place, the horses limit my mobility considerably.
But if we have indeed located the source of the problem I think he will yield. We've had the kids computer powered off for two days and the usage still trends upward so they are probably off the hook and the finger points at the parent who ought to know better. To him the computer is an appliance much like the tv set.
If I understand what you are saying the best solution to the problem is to remove all vestiges of bittorrent from the two Windows computers and warn the Grandson not to install any software on his father's computer without my knowledge.
Could be the dad too Bob. All those 'news' (CNN, MSNBC, etc) sites now offer streaming videos and those are downloaded *each* time you watch them if you chose to watch something again.
17 Gigs might sound like a lot, and for some it is quite a lot, but not for a family of 5 as you describe.
Yes, you are no doubt correct and of course this is the information I needed to be able to understand the problem.
17 gigs down and 5 gigs up are the limits and they have been adequate until recently. Probably the result of Terry gaining experience in using his new computer. I'll have to warn them about the streaming video from the news pages since that very well may be another source.
Normally my philosophy has been I'm paying for the bandwidth so we might as well use it but at the same time I check the usage every day in case something like this should happen, a good thing I did as it turns out!
Mainly it's a matter of finding the cause, then we can try to solve the problem.
Thanks to all.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
on 9/23/2007 12:01 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 11:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Could be the dad too Bob. All those 'news' (CNN, MSNBC, etc) sites now offer streaming videos and those are downloaded *each* time you watch them if you chose to watch something again.
17 Gigs might sound like a lot, and for some it is quite a lot, but not for a family of 5 as you describe.
Yes, you are no doubt correct and of course this is the information I needed to be able to understand the problem.
17 gigs down and 5 gigs up are the limits and they have been adequate until recently. Probably the result of Terry gaining experience in using his new computer. I'll have to warn them about the streaming video from the news pages since that very well may be another source.
Normally my philosophy has been I'm paying for the bandwidth so we might as well use it but at the same time I check the usage every day in case something like this should happen, a good thing I did as it turns out!
Mainly it's a matter of finding the cause, then we can try to solve the problem.
Thanks to all.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
I don't recall you mentioning that there a 5 gig upload limit. What happens when you hit that? Bittorrent, for example, both sends and receives. Sharing. The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 12:01 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 11:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Could be the dad too Bob. All those 'news' (CNN, MSNBC, etc) sites now offer streaming videos and those are downloaded *each* time you watch them if you chose to watch something again.
17 Gigs might sound like a lot, and for some it is quite a lot, but not for a family of 5 as you describe.
Yes, you are no doubt correct and of course this is the information I needed to be able to understand the problem.
17 gigs down and 5 gigs up are the limits and they have been adequate until recently. Probably the result of Terry gaining experience in using his new computer. I'll have to warn them about the streaming video from the news pages since that very well may be another source.
Normally my philosophy has been I'm paying for the bandwidth so we might as well use it but at the same time I check the usage every day in case something like this should happen, a good thing I did as it turns out!
Mainly it's a matter of finding the cause, then we can try to solve the problem.
Thanks to all.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
I don't recall you mentioning that there a 5 gig upload limit. What happens when you hit that? Bittorrent, for example, both sends and receives. Sharing. The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
Yes, I am aware that bittorrent is bidirectional but I suspect that can be adjusted? The data up has been increasing also but not nearly to the extent of data down. Below is a sample of my usage for several days, the third column is data up, the fourth data down, extracted from Wildblue's FAP site:
09/18/2007 08:16:48 1478 13400
09/18/2007 17:24:16 1515 13561
09/19/2007 06:12:35 1596 13977
09/19/2007 17:50:26 1596 13901
09/20/2007 07:15:21 1615 13860
09/21/2007 04:41:57 1749 14907
09/21/2007 16:55:05 1772 15113
09/22/2007 07:22:10 1802 15296
09/23/2007 04:58:40 1889 15739
I don't know what the kid did when he "installed" Azureus or what they have attempted to do with it. In fact I never look over Terry's shoulder to see what he is doing. All I know is the usage is high which means that neither I nor my daughter can do the things we normally use the connection for. She is a photographer and a student and needs internet access for both, I can't update a new F7 install until we get this under control.
It may be simply over use of streaming video, not related to bittorrent at all, I don't know, but we need to 'fix' the problem and we've got his attention now. There is no alternative to the limited satellite service available in this rural area at the present time. If Charter decides to extend the cable half a mile up our road that might be a solution. When last I spoke to them they wanted $6000 for the install!
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
It may be simply over use of streaming video, not related to bittorrent at all, I don't know, but we need to 'fix' the problem and we've got his attention now. There is no alternative to the limited satellite service available in this rural area at the present time. If Charter decides to extend the cable half a mile up our road that might be a solution. When last I spoke to them they wanted $6000 for the install!
If you've got a Linux box in the middle you can do traffic shaping which may solve the problem - you can just keep turning the bandwidth of offenders down until they get the message or the month ends.
The fact its mostly incoming is positive I suspect - a sudden huge amount of outgoing with windows boxes often indicates infection.
David Boles wrote:
I don't recall you mentioning that there a 5 gig upload limit. What happens when you hit that? Bittorrent, for example, both sends and receives. Sharing. The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
And here I thought the 'polite' rule was to upload 1.5 to 2x what you have downloaded. I guess I leave my client running too long after I finish my downloads.
Mikkel
on 9/23/2007 1:22 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 12:01 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 11:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Could be the dad too Bob. All those 'news' (CNN, MSNBC, etc) sites now offer streaming videos and those are downloaded *each* time you watch them if you chose to watch something again.
17 Gigs might sound like a lot, and for some it is quite a lot, but not for a family of 5 as you describe.
Yes, you are no doubt correct and of course this is the information I needed to be able to understand the problem.
17 gigs down and 5 gigs up are the limits and they have been adequate until recently. Probably the result of Terry gaining experience in using his new computer. I'll have to warn them about the streaming video from the news pages since that very well may be another source.
Normally my philosophy has been I'm paying for the bandwidth so we might as well use it but at the same time I check the usage every day in case something like this should happen, a good thing I did as it turns out!
Mainly it's a matter of finding the cause, then we can try to solve the problem.
Thanks to all.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
I don't recall you mentioning that there a 5 gig upload limit. What happens when you hit that? Bittorrent, for example, both sends and receives. Sharing. The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
Yes, I am aware that bittorrent is bidirectional but I suspect that can be adjusted? The data up has been increasing also but not nearly to the extent of data down. Below is a sample of my usage for several days, the third column is data up, the fourth data down, extracted from Wildblue's FAP site:
09/18/2007 08:16:48 1478 13400 09/18/2007 17:24:16 1515 13561 09/19/2007 06:12:35 1596 13977 09/19/2007 17:50:26 1596 13901 09/20/2007 07:15:21 1615 13860 09/21/2007 04:41:57 1749 14907 09/21/2007 16:55:05 1772 15113 09/22/2007 07:22:10 1802 15296 09/23/2007 04:58:40 1889 15739I don't know what the kid did when he "installed" Azureus or what they have attempted to do with it. In fact I never look over Terry's shoulder to see what he is doing. All I know is the usage is high which means that neither I nor my daughter can do the things we normally use the connection for. She is a photographer and a student and needs internet access for both, I can't update a new F7 install until we get this under control.
It may be simply over use of streaming video, not related to bittorrent at all, I don't know, but we need to 'fix' the problem and we've got his attention now. There is no alternative to the limited satellite service available in this rural area at the present time. If Charter decides to extend the cable half a mile up our road that might be a solution. When last I spoke to them they wanted $6000 for the install!
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
Ouch!!
How old is this young man? Old enough to work? Maybe get his own system (read pay his own bill here). Or pay an overage on your bill?
I can understand that he (someone) got lost in the Ozone on this. I wonder if there is a way to meter usage and display it per computer for the computer user? Like a countdown meter. Or a 'this much and you get cut off automatically' application.
on 9/23/2007 1:38 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
David Boles wrote:
I don't recall you mentioning that there a 5 gig upload limit. What happens when you hit that? Bittorrent, for example, both sends and receives. Sharing. The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
And here I thought the 'polite' rule was to upload 1.5 to 2x what you have downloaded. I guess I leave my client running too long after I finish my downloads.
Polite for Linus users is 1.5 to 2x. I was referring to Windows (kids) typical users.
;-)
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 12:01 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
And, alas, Comcast now has Sandvine filters in place that block bittorrent uploading as soon as you are no longer downloading. The symptom is that as soon as your download reaches 100%, all bittorrent upload connections get immediately terminated by a perfectly forged TCP RST packet sent in both directions by a network router. That makes it impossible for Comcast HSI subscribers to be Good Citizens with bittorrent.
on 9/23/2007 2:55 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 12:01 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
And, alas, Comcast now has Sandvine filters in place that block bittorrent uploading as soon as you are no longer downloading. The symptom is that as soon as your download reaches 100%, all bittorrent upload connections get immediately terminated by a perfectly forged TCP RST packet sent in both directions by a network router. That makes it impossible for Comcast HSI subscribers to be Good Citizens with bittorrent.
I wondered just how they were going to do that. All of which was probably forced by the movie, game, music pirates. Too bad.
For a time they were messing with the email/fedora lists for me.
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 2:55 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
David Boles wrote:
on 9/23/2007 12:01 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: The 'polite' rule is to share, upload, at least as much as you download. Most don't.
And, alas, Comcast now has Sandvine filters in place that block bittorrent uploading as soon as you are no longer downloading. The symptom is that as soon as your download reaches 100%, all bittorrent upload connections get immediately terminated by a perfectly forged TCP RST packet sent in both directions by a network router. That makes it impossible for Comcast HSI subscribers to be Good Citizens with bittorrent.
I wondered just how they were going to do that. All of which was probably forced by the movie, game, music pirates. Too bad.
For a time they were messing with the email/fedora lists for me.
I can ask the router to block sites based on keywords. I have told it to block "bittorrent."
Then asking Google to search "bittorrent" results in a message:
"Web Site Blocked by NETGEAR Firewall"
However I don't know how one logs onto bittorrent? Assuming they have to address it by name that would impede them.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:28:17 -0400 Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
However I don't know how one logs onto bittorrent? Assuming they have to address it by name that would impede them.
As far as I'm aware, most torrent files end in .torrent. Therefore, if you can somehow prevent any file named *.torrent from being downloaded, I think that will solve your problem.
Hi Bob,
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Can Azureus be the cause of the excessive traffic or am I looking in the
p2p accounts for >70% of internet traffic, so yes most definately.
In early days we had some plans where we allowed true unlimited, some criminals (yes thats what they are since 99.9%R of p2p is illegal movie d/l's) were on a 1.5 mb dsl connection exceeding 300 gigs a month, thats flat strapping their connection 24/7. Needless to say we stopped it, and its because of idiots like them, that most ISP's now have limits and/or enforce fair use policies, they think that its a 1:1 contention ratio and if they pay $70 a month they are entitled to leach 300 gigs, maybe if we started sending them the price of that data that costs us, plus the tail costs, plus the agvc costs, plus maint costs, plus staff costs, plus a little bit of profit, they would soon wake up... or maybe wake up in intensive care after seeing the [$ value] invoice induced heart attack.
Aha, therein lies my problem, all this while I had a false sense of security thinking I had thwarted previous efforts with bittorrent which Junior had installed some time ago!
Using a linux box as nat router? search for and get the layer7 patch for iptables
yield. We've had the kids computer powered off for two days and the usage still trends upward so they are probably off the hook and the finger points
This is one problem people who use p2p all the time forget, you can turn your pc off, or even just close p2p programs, people can still be swarming your connection for hours to *days* later, whether your online for not, some networks simply ignore the fact you are gone, even on gnutella/limewire networks where you tell the network you are logging off, it still happens, the packets go missing and they all think your still there.
Res wrote:
Hi Bob,
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Can Azureus be the cause of the excessive traffic or am I looking in the
p2p accounts for >70% of internet traffic, so yes most definately.
In early days we had some plans where we allowed true unlimited, some criminals (yes thats what they are since 99.9%R of p2p is illegal movie d/l's) were on a 1.5 mb dsl connection exceeding 300 gigs a month, thats flat strapping their connection 24/7. Needless to say we stopped it, and its because of idiots like them, that most ISP's now have limits and/or enforce fair use policies, they think that its a 1:1 contention ratio and if they pay $70 a month they are entitled to leach 300 gigs, maybe if we started sending them the price of that data that costs us, plus the tail costs, plus the agvc costs, plus maint costs, plus staff costs, plus a little bit of profit, they would soon wake up... or maybe wake up in intensive care after seeing the [$ value] invoice induced heart attack.
Aha, therein lies my problem, all this while I had a false sense of security thinking I had thwarted previous efforts with bittorrent which Junior had installed some time ago!
Using a linux box as nat router? search for and get the layer7 patch for iptables
yield. We've had the kids computer powered off for two days and the usage still trends upward so they are probably off the hook and the finger points
This is one problem people who use p2p all the time forget, you can turn your pc off, or even just close p2p programs, people can still be swarming your connection for hours to *days* later, whether your online for not, some networks simply ignore the fact you are gone, even on gnutella/limewire networks where you tell the network you are logging off, it still happens, the packets go missing and they all think your still there.
Wow, that's discouraging if I understand what you are saying. I guess the effect would be intermittent depending on what files the system thinks you have? Hopefully it gradually subsides when there is no response?
This ISP uses a 30 day total so it takes some time for our numbers to improve.
I got the call to supper. Need to go.
Thanks for the comments.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Bob Goodwin wrote:
This is one problem people who use p2p all the time forget, you can turn your pc off, or even just close p2p programs, people can still be swarming your connection for hours to *days* later, whether your online for not, some networks simply ignore the fact you are gone, even on gnutella/limewire networks where you tell the network you are logging off, it still happens, the packets go missing and they all think your still there.
Wow, that's discouraging if I understand what you are saying. I guess the effect would be intermittent depending on what files the system thinks you have? Hopefully it gradually subsides when there is no response?
Thats right it would be, but if you have on offer in full or in part, one of the latest box office smash hits, yes it will be hell for you, if its some ebook that nobody has heard of, chances are you'll be fairly safe, or what comes in over the following hours/days would be less use than say, DNS lookups so its negligible, we've had customers swear blind they are not file sharing when trying to lodge speed complaints, when we look at the port, we know otherwise :)
This ISP uses a 30 day total so it takes some time for our numbers to improve.
If its a rolling anniversary that would be a pain, at least if it was monthly you know you only have a few days left, and can let the young fella go for his life on the last day if you have plenty of unused GB's
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
In early days we had some plans where we allowed true unlimited, some criminals (yes thats what they are since 99.9%R of p2p is illegal movie d/l's) were on a 1.5 mb dsl connection exceeding 300 gigs a month, thats
Actually that is not the case in many countries, copyright infringement at that low level is a civil issue, not a criminal one. And if you look at the suits that are filed, AFAIK they ALL complain at the upload action, not the download.
flat strapping their connection 24/7. Needless to say we stopped it, and its because of idiots like them, that most ISP's now have limits and/or enforce fair use policies, they think that its a 1:1 contention ratio
It is because the ISPs do not invest in equipment to keep ahead of consumer demand, for whatever reason the demand exists. They find it much easier to blame their customers than to invest as they should. There are authorized movie and TV download services now that would generate the same traffic -- this is greed and lack of imagination at the ISP, not the fault of the customer who is paying to have his bits moved around.
There is no inherent bandwidth shortage, it is not like gold or land: they are still making it. Nor aside from this artificial monthly limit concept is there any point in saving it up to use later.
In the next few years WiMAX will become popular and I hope and expect this will allow customers to do much more routing and transfer themselves outside of their ISP.
This is one problem people who use p2p all the time forget, you can turn your pc off, or even just close p2p programs, people can still be swarming your connection for hours to *days* later, whether your online for not, some networks simply ignore the fact you are gone, even on gnutella/limewire networks where you tell the network you are logging off, it still happens, the packets go missing and they all think your still there.
That's true, but unless it is UDP, no bulk transfer is taking place though, just connect attempts.
-Andy
Its basically a peer-peer program, suggest you uninstall it .
k
On 9/23/07, Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
Can someone tell me hos Azureus on a Windows computer on my LAN might affect the amount of data downloaded via my ISP?
My son-in-law finally admitted that his son had installed Azureus on his computer while visiting a couple weeks ago. WE have a limited amount of data allowed by Wildblue, 17 gigs in a 30 day period and it is becoming a panic situation with less than 2 gigs before we hit the limit and they take action!
Can Azureus be the cause of the excessive traffic or am I looking in the wrong place. I closed the bittorrent port in the router months ago and that should still be closed ...
Presently we have his computer shut down. There's no telling what he's got on it but my daughter is threatening to put him back on dial-up! I can see a period of strife on the horizon.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
In early days we had some plans where we allowed true unlimited, some criminals (yes thats what they are since 99.9%R of p2p is illegal movie d/l's) were on a 1.5 mb dsl connection exceeding 300 gigs a month, thats
Actually that is not the case in many countries, copyright infringement at that low level is a civil issue, not a criminal one. And if you look at the suits that are filed, AFAIK they ALL complain at the upload action, not the download.
in this country it is criminal so what it is in the U.S for isntance maters nothing to us, only what our laws say
It is because the ISPs do not invest in equipment to keep ahead of consumer demand, for whatever reason the demand exists. They find it much easier to blame their customers than to invest as they should.
So.. you are saying we should offer these crims 300 gigs a month for 70 bucks? No fucking way! If they wont 300 gigs a month, they can have it, but they will be moved to a business plan and damn well pay for every MB, ISP's are NOT charities! someone has to pay for all that data.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:15:26 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
So.. you are saying we should offer these crims 300 gigs a month for 70 bucks? No fucking way! If they wont 300 gigs a month, they can have it, but they will be moved to a business plan and damn well pay for every MB, ISP's are NOT charities! someone has to pay for all that data.
As long as you don't advertise your service as "unlimited", there is nothing wrong your approach.
You should always make sure that your customers know what their use cap actually is, though. Playing "guess the magic number" like some ISP's apparently do is not fair ball.
The ISP that I use (Sask Tel) is a true unlimited DSL service. As long as I pay the monthly bill, nobody cares how much or how little I use. I think it's around $65 or $70 per month for my service - I have the "enhanced" service that includes two static IP addresses. The "regular" service is the same, but costs about $10 or $15 less. You just don't get static addresses.
Bob Goodwin wrote:
I can ask the router to block sites based on keywords. I have told it to block "bittorrent."
Then asking Google to search "bittorrent" results in a message:
"Web Site Blocked by NETGEAR Firewall"
However I don't know how one logs onto bittorrent? Assuming they have to address it by name that would impede them.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
I think you are working backwards.
Close all ports and then open only the ones you need. Web and email and then go from there. As you find issues, then you open the necessary ports. Example, ftp.
Then if something doesn't work, they will have to come to you and find the issue.
On my router, I can open and close ports based on time so I could open certain ports after suzie and johnny are in bed.
Robin Laing wrote:
I think you are working backwards.
Close all ports and then open only the ones you need. Web and email and then go from there. As you find issues, then you open the necessary ports. Example, ftp.
Not sure I can do this with the Netgear router I have, not unless I listed all the ports which would be a major effort. As it is blocking "torrent" seems to prevent access to addresses containing "something.torrent." In addition I already have a number of undesirable sites blocked. I think I've probably got bittorrent covered now ...
Then if something doesn't work, they will have to come to you and find the issue.
On my router, I can open and close ports based on time so I could open certain ports after suzie and johnny are in bed.
I have a parental control program on the twins computer that does this and more.
I'm curious as to what router you have? I am considering buying another, perhaps Buffalo. I prefer to stay clear of Linksys after an episode getting a defective wireless adapter replaced. They eventually sent me a new one, it's still in the unopened box.
I've had two episodes of the router becoming inoperative in the last 48 hours! This router has been in operation for a year and a half without any problem at all. It can be easily configured via Firefox on this F7 box, worked fine until this weekend! Each time I lost radio contact with it until I went downstairs and pulled the power plug for a few seconds after which it returned to normal.
That causes me to wonder if it is subject to attack from the internet side, it doesn't have the stock password at least. With my other problems I am becoming paranoid.
Bob Goodwin Zuni, Virginia
Bob Goodwin wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
I think you are working backwards.
Close all ports and then open only the ones you need. Web and email and then go from there. As you find issues, then you open the necessary ports. Example, ftp.
Not sure I can do this with the Netgear router I have, not unless I listed all the ports which would be a major effort. As it is blocking "torrent" seems to prevent access to addresses containing "something.torrent." In addition I already have a number of undesirable sites blocked. I think I've probably got bittorrent covered now ...
If you turn off UPnP, then most P2P software is not going to work - they need the incoming port forwarded to their PC. Because it is a new connection, the router will not forward it unless there is a rule telling it to. UPnP lets them set up the rule without having to log into the router. Without this, they will be able to download, but not upload. This has a side effect of drastically slowing their download speed.
I've had two episodes of the router becoming inoperative in the
last 48
hours! This router has been in operation for a year and a half without any problem at all. It can be easily configured via Firefox on this F7 box, worked fine until this weekend! Each time I lost radio contact with it until I went downstairs and pulled the power plug for a few seconds after which it returned to normal.
That causes me to wonder if it is subject to attack from the internet side, it doesn't have the stock password at least. With my other problems I am becoming paranoid.
Check the router temperature as well. You may need to vacuum it out, or blow it out with canned air. I have run into this more then once - the first symptom is that wireless shots down, or at least stops accepting new connections. I also find that the router tends to run cooler if you use the vertical feet (brackets) to stand it on end instead of sitting flat. You can tell it is getting too warm by feeling the bottom of the router. The end by port 4 tends to be the hottest.
Mikkel
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:25 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I've had two episodes of the router becoming inoperative in the last 48 hours! This router has been in operation for a year and a half without any problem at all.
That can happen with some routers when peer-to-peer software has been used and has amassed a plethora of concurrent connections.
Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:25 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I've had two episodes of the router becoming inoperative in the last 48 hours! This router has been in operation for a year and a half without any problem at all.
That can happen with some routers when peer-to-peer software has been used and has amassed a plethora of concurrent connections.
Can I expect that activity to taper off in a few days? Each time it has happened was in the evening. First time I thought the ISP was down but four in the morning when I awoke I decided I needed to troubleshoot the problem and found it was the wireless router. I had no wired connection to the router from here so I could not make a more precise determination of what had happened, just that it wasn't communicating with the access points. Re-cycling power brought it back to its senses.
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
In early days we had some plans where we allowed true unlimited, some criminals (yes thats what they are since 99.9%R of p2p is illegal movie d/l's) were on a 1.5 mb dsl connection exceeding 300 gigs a month, thats
Actually that is not the case in many countries, copyright infringement at that low level is a civil issue, not a criminal one. And if you look at the suits that are filed, AFAIK they ALL complain at the upload action, not the download.
in this country it is criminal so what it is in the U.S for isntance maters nothing to us, only what our laws say
*shrug* best to say "yes that's what they are *in my country*" then, because there must be a lot of places where is a civil issue.
It is because the ISPs do not invest in equipment to keep ahead of consumer demand, for whatever reason the demand exists. They find it much easier to blame their customers than to invest as they should.
So.. you are saying we should offer these crims 300 gigs a month for 70
These people downloading media files, which you assume are violating any laws, and choose to label "criminals"... what about all the YouTube, iTunes, the various legit movie and TV episode download sites that all eat bandwidth... those users are all "crims" too are they? Several TV stations here offer downloads of episodes for a week after they air, admittedly in some wmv encrypted crap, but still, there is hundreds of legitimate MB a go. The stuff on Miro too now, hundreds and hundreds of MB of honestly licensed stuff. Rhythmbox can reach out to thousands of legit albums on Jamendo and Magnatune, again 50MB or more an album.
bucks? No fucking way! If they wont 300 gigs a month, they can have it, but they will be moved to a business plan and damn well pay for every MB, ISP's are NOT charities! someone has to pay for all that data.
I'm on an unlimited 20Mbps cable connection... along with what must be hundreds of thousands of others here in the UK -- it's not cheap but it's not a "business plan". Your idea of what is possible and what is good customer service for ISPs seems pretty messed up. In the future it'll all be on unlimited eyerywhere at bandwidth beyond our dreams, just like what we have now is beyond what we could imagine in 1980.
-Andy
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
The ISP that I use (Sask Tel) is a true unlimited DSL service. As long as I pay the monthly bill, nobody cares how much or how little I use. I think it's around $65 or $70 per month for my service - I have the "enhanced" service that
This is only because of user offsets, if you pay them 70, you might cost them 300, but it is thanks to the people who pay them 70 however only cost them 20 that you are able to get away with it.
True unlimited or not, no ISP is in business to lose money, if all those other users who cost them only 20, start costing them 70, thats becomes a break-even or no-profit, add users like you and its a clear loss, you will find one of two things happening, prices skyrocket or your hit with data caps to stop the abuse so they can make a profit.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
*shrug* best to say "yes that's what they are *in my country*" then, because there must be a lot of places where is a civil issue.
Or more to the point nobody here should assume everything is uniform, this is an international user list.
So.. you are saying we should offer these crims 300 gigs a month for 70
These people downloading media files, which you assume are violating any laws, and choose to label "criminals"... what about all the YouTube, iTunes, the various legit movie and TV episode download sites that all
I spend a lot of time on youtube, I also watch certain shows from the US via CBS (I think it is) since the local networks stopped importing and showing some of those shows, I stream the bbc many hours a day, I do critical DB backups daily to my home desktop (just an extra part of off-site backing up) and it'd be lucky to hit 50 gigs a month, and thats a big effort, there is no way you can stream legal material that uses 300G a month, and you and I both know it, to tink otherwise is to be blind and nieve, and smells of " i'm not doing anything wrong no on no not me ever" heard it a trillion times before, and SEEN it!
When I was dealing with speed complaints, you only have to look at the port and you can see what they are doing, encrypted data? no problems, lock and unlock their port, they restart their p2p, and we can see what they are doing, i have had so many deny it to me whilst im on the phone talking to them, and i'm seeing they are downloading the latest yet to be released in this country movies, but then again, have you ever known a criminal to admit what they are doing is wrong without being caught, have you ever known a spamemr to think what he/she is doing is spamming, its all denials, adn we see right through you :)
I'm on an unlimited 20Mbps cable connection... along with what must be hundreds of thousands of others here in the UK -- it's not cheap but it's not a "business plan". Your idea of what is possible and what is good customer service for ISPs seems pretty messed up. In the future
The cost of data to Australia is expensive, courtesy of the american tier 1 extortionate interconnects, we can pay anywhere up to 30 times what U.S ISPs do per data (they blame it on the loooooooonnnnggggg trans pacific haul), so there will never be such a thing as true unlimited on a survivable business model in this country :) Certainly not in any forseeable future.
On 9/24/07, Res res@ausics.net wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
*shrug* best to say "yes that's what they are *in my country*" then, because there must be a lot of places where is a civil issue.
Or more to the point nobody here should assume everything is uniform, this is an international user list.
So.. you are saying we should offer these crims 300 gigs a month for 70
These people downloading media files, which you assume are violating any laws, and choose to label "criminals"... what about all the YouTube, iTunes, the various legit movie and TV episode download sites that all
I spend a lot of time on youtube, I also watch certain shows from the US via CBS (I think it is) since the local networks stopped importing and showing some of those shows, I stream the bbc many hours a day, I do critical DB backups daily to my home desktop (just an extra part of off-site backing up) and it'd be lucky to hit 50 gigs a month, and thats a big effort, there is no way you can stream legal material that uses 300G a month, and you and I both know it, to tink otherwise is to be blind and nieve, and smells of " i'm not doing anything wrong no on no not me ever" heard it a trillion times before, and SEEN it!
When I was dealing with speed complaints, you only have to look at the port and you can see what they are doing, encrypted data? no problems, lock and unlock their port, they restart their p2p, and we can see what they are doing, i have had so many deny it to me whilst im on the phone talking to them, and i'm seeing they are downloading the latest yet to be released in this country movies, but then again, have you ever known a criminal to admit what they are doing is wrong without being caught, have you ever known a spamemr to think what he/she is doing is spamming, its all denials, adn we see right through you :)
I'm on an unlimited 20Mbps cable connection... along with what must be hundreds of thousands of others here in the UK -- it's not cheap but it's not a "business plan". Your idea of what is possible and what is good customer service for ISPs seems pretty messed up. In the future
The cost of data to Australia is expensive, courtesy of the american tier 1 extortionate interconnects, we can pay anywhere up to 30 times what U.S ISPs do per data (they blame it on the loooooooonnnnggggg trans pacific haul), so there will never be such a thing as true unlimited on a survivable business model in this country :) Certainly not in any forseeable future.
--
Cheers Res
LOL Nothing that money can't fix. Google is purported to be building a pacific cable of their own. If your local telco doesn't get their paws on it you just might get a break.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Kam Leo wrote:
LOL Nothing that money can't fix. Google is purported to be building a pacific cable of their own. If your local telco doesn't get their paws on it you just might get a break.
Yep, heard about a week ago, sadly though one of the partners is one of the the rip-off merchants, but i'm sure Google will make sure the price is much fairer than what we have to pay now if it goes ahead.
What we need to see is an alternative cable route, all routes but a couple go to the US, one goes to NZ then US, one goes to HK then US, what I'd love to see is a direct link into EU, via HK or via another new submarine cable entering around Indian Ocean, when the yanks realise we have a choice, then maybe they'll lower the costs, at present there is no incentive for them to stop ripping us off.
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 07:09 +1000, Res wrote:
True unlimited or not, no ISP is in business to lose money, if all those other users who cost them only 20, start costing them 70, thats becomes a break-even or no-profit, add users like you and its a clear loss, you will find one of two things happening, prices skyrocket or your hit with data caps to stop the abuse so they can make a profit.
True enough, but I tend to think that those who've placed a dollar value on the byte have inflated it's true value by a rather large magnitude.
I don't think unlimited is really needed, but if they started charging a truely appropriate amount, we'd be better off. If they had their way, it'd be a dollar a byte.
It is typical for ISPs not to install the amount of infrastructure really required for their clients. That started with dial-up, with not enough phone lines for the number of their customers that wanted to be on-line simultaneously. That problem's largely overcome, thesedays, particularly with always-on DSL and cable, they've had to bite the bullet. But it's still common enough for them to not have enough bandwidth for all their clients.
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 07:41 +1000, Res wrote:
I spend a lot of time on youtube, I also watch certain shows from the US via CBS (I think it is) since the local networks stopped importing and showing some of those shows, I stream the bbc many hours a day, I do critical DB backups daily to my home desktop (just an extra part of off-site backing up) and it'd be lucky to hit 50 gigs a month, and thats a big effort, there is no way you can stream legal material that uses 300G a month, and you and I both know it, to tink otherwise is to be blind and nieve, and smells of " i'm not doing anything wrong no on no not me ever" heard it a trillion times before, and SEEN it!
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Certainly in the future, people will not find 300 x 200 pixel screens, at 10 frames per second, with heavy MPEG compression, to be an acceptable data format. It won't just be pirated DVDs that'll be transmitted in a high-resolution manner.
At least one of our local ISPs is dabbling with the notion of on-line video libraries, at full or high definition video. That's going to be somewhere around 5-10 gigs for one movie. Presuming that a household might watch one or two movies (worth *) a night on television, as it is, particularly with kids watching TV in the bedroom while parents watch something less inane in the lounge, you could easily rack up 300 gigs a month.
* Whether that really be a movie, or three television shows, the amount of likely data is what I'm referring to.
At that stage, that's local traffic (customer to ISP), but the television stations will get into the act soon enough, when they realise that current television broadcasting is going the way of the dodo - with people sick of adverts, programs being on at the wrong time for them, and so on. So it'll be something like that many gigs a month and not all of it local traffic.
Bob Goodwin:
I've had two episodes of the router becoming inoperative in the last 48 hours! This router has been in operation for a year and a half without any problem at all.
Tim:
That can happen with some routers when peer-to-peer software has been used and has amassed a plethora of concurrent connections.
Bob Goodwin:
Can I expect that activity to taper off in a few days?
I'm basing this mostly on other's observations, as I've only dabbled in peer-to-peer. I prefer classical music, we have a good 24-hour free to air radio station without advertising, and I've no interest in listening to crapily encoded MP3s. I've had a look at peer-to-peer, concluded that it wouldn't serve me well, and I don't really like the overall circumstances.
Other clients will continue to try to connect back to you for some time. They'll make periodic connection attempts, waiting longer and longer after each unsuccessful attempt. In themselves, the connection attempts are only tiny, but attracting thousands of them is where a problem can occur. Which can be a problem for your network, overall. Or even just for the firewall/router trying to keep track of what it should and shouldn't allow.
I have seen gtk-gnutella keep trying to connect to a client to finish downloading a file every ten minutes or so, forever. It doesn't search the network for a new source, it tries the same IP it found earlier, it doesn't eventually drop the file from the download list. I'd imagine most clients probably do the same, so if you'd shared out something popular, you'll be on a lot of people's connecting-to lists.
If your peer-to-peer client has a proper log-off procedure, then follow it, rather than just abruptly disconnect. The idea is that it should send a disconnecting flag of some sort to the network, but it would seem that it's usually ignored, anyway.
If you have the ability to change your public IP, such as resetting your modem and your ISP doesn't always reassign you the same one, then you'll fob off the connection attempts onto the next person to get your IP.
If you share as well as download, you will attract more connections. Not just those having a look, but those getting files from you. If you are comitting piracy, rather than sharing freely redistributable files, then sharing stuff out is an even worse offense than just nicking files.
For what it's worth, if you're into getting music or movies, forgo the expensive ISP monthly account, go for a cheaper account and spend the difference down the local record shop once a month. Or find a legit cheap pay-for-music download site.
Each time it has happened was in the evening. First time I thought the ISP was down but four in the morning when I awoke I decided I needed to troubleshoot the problem and found it was the wireless router. I had no wired connection to the router from here so I could not make a more precise determination of what had happened, just that it wasn't communicating with the access points. Re-cycling power brought it back to its senses.
Some modems have a status page that'll show you things like how much load its CPU is dealing with, how many connections, how many errors, etc. If yours has one, you might want to check on it.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Certainly in the future, people will not find 300 x 200 pixel screens, at 10 frames per second, with heavy MPEG compression, to be an acceptable data format. It won't just be pirated DVDs that'll be transmitted in a high-resolution manner.
but you wont be getting it at the prices you pay now, hence why adsl2 services are more costly, because you can get a lot more than 300 in a month, and anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
At that stage, that's local traffic (customer to ISP), but the
thats data on AGVC's, ISP's still have to pay for AGVC's as well, the likes of telscum dont miss out in rapeing you in any and everyway they possibly can, however with optus's full residential about to end "run-in" period, it will make a huge difference, as Optus have always been cheaper with dark fiber, transit and everything else, once they complete this new zedrez tel$tra are screwed because until now its been basically only them supplying AGVC and backhaul
television stations will get into the act soon enough, when they realise that current television broadcasting is going the way of the dodo - with people sick of adverts, programs being on at the wrong time for them,
I am about to cancel foxtel, i pay those scummy bastards 100 a month and rarely watch it, and yes, its full of adds as well, any show i watch is full of em, that will be my termiantion reason " if i want to have my shows interupted every 10 minutes by adds, i'll watch the FTA stations"
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:41:21 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
but you wont be getting it at the prices you pay now,
Actually, you will probably get it for less than you pay now.
Check archives of Compuserve's rates from 1985 and compare them to today's ISP packages. Extrapolate from there...
Res wrote:
but you wont be getting it at the prices you pay now, hence why adsl2 services are more costly, because you can get a lot more than 300 in a month, and anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
Hint: You need not sit in front of you monitor for the downloads to run and complete.
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
be released in this country movies, but then again, have you ever known a criminal to admit what they are doing is wrong without being caught, have you ever known a spamemr to think what he/she is doing is spamming, its all denials, adn we see right through you :)
I googled on Australia civil criminal copyright and it seems your laws are a mixture of civil and criminal liability as I expected, depending on what the offense was. There was a change in 2006 that criminalized some specific stuff around software copying it seems, but the minor noncommercial media copying law appears to remain a civil offense.
Even in Australia ;-) you might get into trouble calling people "criminal" when nobody found them guilty and it would be a civil offense anyway.
I'm on an unlimited 20Mbps cable connection... along with what must be hundreds of thousands of others here in the UK -- it's not cheap but it's not a "business plan". Your idea of what is possible and what is good customer service for ISPs seems pretty messed up. In the future
The cost of data to Australia is expensive, courtesy of the american tier 1 extortionate interconnects, we can pay anywhere up to 30 times what U.S ISPs do per data (they blame it on the loooooooonnnnggggg trans pacific haul), so there will never be such a thing as true unlimited on a survivable business model in this country :) Certainly not in any forseeable future.
Seems we agree greed and bad service from the carriers is the problem.
If you look at the "good side" of P2P, once it is in Australia you can get it locally... there are new licensed content P2P services like Joost
-Andy
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
There's any number of people who have a television running, almost non-stop, whether they're really paying attention to it or not. They also tend to be the people who phone you at awkward times, and still keep their TV running full blast in the background so you've got a headache within a few minutes. Though I tend to agree about the needing a real life retort to that. ;-)
I used to run the radio most of the day (and the TV off!), but that was a real radio, and electricity costs are far less than data costs. People do expect to be able to do the same sort of thing, internet-wise.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 17:41 +1000, Res wrote:
anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
There's any number of people who have a television running, almost non-stop, whether they're really paying attention to it or not. They also tend to be the people who phone you at awkward times, and still keep their TV running full blast in the background so you've got a
"pardon? pardon? im having trouble heareing you" :) they soon get the message, and yeah its horribly annoying, i had one wanka once who wouldnt i asked him to wait, put him on hold, wlaked into hte DC, and deliberately tuned the radio station off, so he was hearing whitenoise :D sadly so was everyone else, but it was worth it.
headache within a few minutes. Though I tend to agree about the needing a real life retort to that. ;-)
hehehe
I used to run the radio most of the day (and the TV off!), but that was a real radio, and electricity costs are far less than data costs. People do expect to be able to do the same sort of thing, internet-wise.
yeah, typical radio streams at 3 kB/s that is not going to hurt anyone or thing tho.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:41:21 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
but you wont be getting it at the prices you pay now,
Actually, you will probably get it for less than you pay now.
Check archives of Compuserve's rates from 1985 and compare them to today's ISP
I recall the days they used to charge 12 to 15 bux an hour, I guess thats why they never lasted over hear :)
packages. Extrapolate from there...
problem is, the data costs here are so different to the US and Europe so it wont be that different over here, our 2 primary tier 1's, connect to internconnect in the US, who rip us off completely compared to what they charge claiming the maint on the subm cables as the reason, then one of our tier 1's (telstra) rape us to the hilt anyway so its more of a reason for then to further screw us over, the second competitor (optus/singtel) are much cheaper and the quality is as good, but they also charge a lot more because of the interconencts they have to pay, we will never win over here, a few years ago when U.S ISP's were charged $1 p/GB, we were typcially seeing between $70 and $130 p/GB, and the charge was at least back then on backhaul as well, somthing which scummy tel$tra actually did not charge us for (amazingly) although they did bring in a charge on it towards the end if you had X utilisation over Y.
I'd love to be able to offer my customers a 1:1 contention but not in this millenium :)
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Res wrote:
but you wont be getting it at the prices you pay now, hence why adsl2 services are more costly, because you can get a lot more than 300 in a month, and anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
Hint: You need not sit in front of you monitor for the downloads to run and complete.
?? who said anything abou that, you been around long enough to know what was meant by my comment :)
Res wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Res wrote:
but you wont be getting it at the prices you pay now, hence why adsl2 services are more costly, because you can get a lot more than 300 in a month, and anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
Hint: You need not sit in front of you monitor for the downloads to run and complete.
?? who said anything abou that, you been around long enough to know what was meant by my comment :)
It shouldn't stop me from having a bit of fun, should it?
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
be released in this country movies, but then again, have you ever known a criminal to admit what they are doing is wrong without being caught, have you ever known a spamemr to think what he/she is doing is spamming, its all denials, adn we see right through you :)
I googled on Australia civil criminal copyright and it seems your laws are a mixture of civil and criminal liability as I expected, depending on what the offense was. There was a change in 2006 that criminalized some specific stuff around software copying it seems, but the minor noncommercial media copying law appears to remain a civil offense.
As one who deals with the Federal Police most often in supplying user details for investigation for prosecution on these matters I can assure you its more criminal :)
Even in Australia ;-) you might get into trouble calling people "criminal" when nobody found them guilty and it would be a civil offense anyway.
Actually, no, because I have the authority under the telecommunications act to monitor any data passing through my network, either at direction of a L.E.A, or because i "suspect" someone is up to no good, I can guaranteee you, the people that try to do 300G a month are all illegal p2p'rs, because they are the ones who cry the loudest when somthing does not work or its going "slow", I and any of my associates look and we can see what they are doing and know they are comitting offences, so we have the captured proof, and "truth" is an acceptable defence.
tier 1 extortionate interconnects, we can pay anywhere up to 30 times what U.S ISPs do per data (they blame it on the loooooooonnnnggggg trans pacific haul), so there will never be such a thing as true unlimited on a survivable business model in this country :) Certainly not in any forseeable future.
Seems we agree greed and bad service from the carriers is the problem.
Well we had to agree to somthing adventually :) But I still dont beleive that gives the users the right to treat their conenction as a 1:1, they are in a shared pool, like all ISP's run, thats why many ISP's have business grades, which are in fact 1:1, and should be because they pay for it.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
month, and anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
Hint: You need not sit in front of you monitor for the downloads to
?? who said anything abou that, you been around long enough to know what was meant by my comment :)
It shouldn't stop me from having a bit of fun, should it?
course not, it can liven up the convo.
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
be released in this country movies, but then again, have you ever known a criminal to admit what they are doing is wrong without being caught, have you ever known a spamemr to think what he/she is doing is spamming, its all denials, adn we see right through you :)
I googled on Australia civil criminal copyright and it seems your laws are a mixture of civil and criminal liability as I expected, depending on what the offense was. There was a change in 2006 that criminalized some specific stuff around software copying it seems, but the minor noncommercial media copying law appears to remain a civil offense.
As one who deals with the Federal Police most often in supplying user details for investigation for prosecution on these matters I can assure you its more criminal :)
Well, one gets prosecuted for civil offenses too. Nice job you got there.
Even in Australia ;-) you might get into trouble calling people "criminal" when nobody found them guilty and it would be a civil offense anyway.
Actually, no, because I have the authority under the telecommunications act to monitor any data passing through my network, either at direction of a L.E.A, or because i "suspect" someone is up to no good, I can guaranteee you, the people that try to do 300G a month are all illegal p2p'rs, because they are the ones who cry the loudest when somthing does not work or its going "slow", I and any of my associates look and we can see what they are doing and know they are comitting offences, so we have the captured proof, and "truth" is an acceptable defence.
There are all sorts of laws in other countries, probably .au too, about what you are allowed to "monitor", especially when it is to do with email. Just a FYI.
tier 1 extortionate interconnects, we can pay anywhere up to 30 times what U.S ISPs do per data (they blame it on the loooooooonnnnggggg trans pacific haul), so there will never be such a thing as true unlimited on a survivable business model in this country :) Certainly not in any forseeable future.
Seems we agree greed and bad service from the carriers is the problem.
Well we had to agree to somthing adventually :) But I still dont beleive that gives the users the right to treat their conenction as a 1:1, they are in a shared pool, like all ISP's run, thats why many ISP's have business grades, which are in fact 1:1, and should be because they pay for it.
If someone is offering a service at a particular bandwidth, I am paying the bills, then of course if I want to max out that service 24/7 I will do so. (Typically my traffic too is silent 90% of the time and bursty the rest, but it's not the point). Whose fault is it they set the contention ratio -- for profit -- too high? Not mine, I paid for the offered service. It's the fault of the ISP not to back up their offer with the right level of investment in equipment, as I said earlier. It's like buying a ticket on an airline that overbooks the airplanes 50 x over each flight, then blaming the irate passengers that keep getting bumped for "wanting to fly".
If the bandwidth management policy of the ISP is to throw their largest users to the wolves to reduce the level of service they have to provide -- for profit -- then that really sucks. Whatever moral case you can assemble against unauthorized copying is dwarfed by the immorality of such an ISP policy IMO.
Clearly we are on different sides of the fence on this issue.
-Andy
Res wrote:
It shouldn't stop me from having a bit of fun, should it?
course not, it can liven up the convo.
That's good to know. Sometimes folks take this computer crap too seriously. As if their lives depended on it.
Hummm... An email from Medtronic? Seems as if there may be a software glitch in my pacemaker...Ouch! Wow, never....Ouch...felt that before...Ouch.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
There are all sorts of laws in other countries, probably .au too, about what you are allowed to "monitor", especially when it is to do with email. Just a FYI.
I know the laws vary country to country, i dont need to know what it is anywhere but here, I know in some countries they are not permitted to monitor anything at all, its not that we do it for the hell of it, its because we have a reason, id much rather listen to the radio and drink my de-caf :)
If someone is offering a service at a particular bandwidth, I am paying the bills, then of course if I want to max out that service 24/7 I will do so. (Typically my traffic too is silent 90% of the time and bursty the rest, but it's not the point). Whose fault is it they set the contention ratio -- for profit -- too high? Not mine, I paid for the
you dont run an isp network do you, in fact youve nefver had anything to do with running of one have you :) I can tell because you have no factual grasp on reality on whats involved. If you think its a profitable business model to do a 1:1 for 70 bucks a month and flatline your conenction 24/7, then why dont you start your own ISP :) but, you have to only take on custoemrs like0mionded in other words you cant do what every otehr isp doesm and thats allow the ones paying teh same dollar as you but barely use 1G a month off-set your costs.
Clearly we are on different sides of the fence on this issue.
of course, you are a user who wants everything for nothing, you know how many times ive heard your line of reasoning before over the past 10 plus years? I couldnt tell you, ive lost count, im sure i could easily retire by now if i had 5 dollars each time though.
So well have to agree to disagree
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Res wrote:
It shouldn't stop me from having a bit of fun, should it?
course not, it can liven up the convo.
That's good to know. Sometimes folks take this computer crap too seriously. As if their lives depended on it.
hehehe, ive always maintained if you take things to heart, then WTF are ya doing on any form of public forum, be it a forum, lists or newsgroups..
Hummm... An email from Medtronic? Seems as if there may be a software glitch in my pacemaker...Ouch! Wow, never....Ouch...felt that before...Ouch.
hehe, id do somthing about that, i hope its underlying OS is not based on win :)
my my typos are bad, time for bed :)
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Res wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
There are all sorts of laws in other countries, probably .au too, about what you are allowed to "monitor", especially when it is to do with email. Just a FYI.
I know the laws vary country to country, i dont need to know what it is anywhere but here, I know in some countries they are not permitted to monitor anything at all, its not that we do it for the hell of it, its because we have a reason, id much rather listen to the radio and drink my de-caf :)
If someone is offering a service at a particular bandwidth, I am paying the bills, then of course if I want to max out that service 24/7 I will do so. (Typically my traffic too is silent 90% of the time and bursty the rest, but it's not the point). Whose fault is it they set the contention ratio -- for profit -- too high? Not mine, I paid for the
you dont run an isp network do you, in fact youve nefver had anything to do with running of one have you :) I can tell because you have no factual grasp on reality on whats involved. If you think its a profitable business model to do a 1:1 for 70 bucks a month and flatline your conenction 24/7, then why dont you start your own ISP :) but, you have to only take on custoemrs like0mionded in other words you cant do what every otehr isp doesm and thats allow the ones paying teh same dollar as you but barely use 1G a month off-set your costs.
Clearly we are on different sides of the fence on this issue.
of course, you are a user who wants everything for nothing, you know how many times ive heard your line of reasoning before over the past 10 plus years? I couldnt tell you, ive lost count, im sure i could easily retire by now if i had 5 dollars each time though.
So well have to agree to disagree
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
There are all sorts of laws in other countries, probably .au too, about what you are allowed to "monitor", especially when it is to do with email. Just a FYI.
I know the laws vary country to country, i dont need to know what it is anywhere but here, I know in some countries they are not permitted to monitor anything at all, its not that we do it for the hell of it, its because we have a reason, id much rather listen to the radio and drink my de-caf :)
If someone is offering a service at a particular bandwidth, I am paying the bills, then of course if I want to max out that service 24/7 I will do so. (Typically my traffic too is silent 90% of the time and bursty the rest, but it's not the point). Whose fault is it they set the contention ratio -- for profit -- too high? Not mine, I paid for the
you dont run an isp network do you, in fact youve nefver had anything to do with running of one have you :) I can tell because you have no factual grasp on reality on whats involved.
Nope, but of course I have been a customer of a few and know it well from that end.
If you think its a profitable business model to do a 1:1 for 70 bucks a month and flatline your conenction 24/7, then why dont you start your own ISP :) but, you have to only take on custoemrs like0mionded in other words you cant do what every otehr isp doesm and thats allow the ones paying teh same dollar as you but barely use 1G a month off-set your costs.
I do agree that it would be better if customers took on some responsibility for their own regional bulk transfer outside of the ISP, not least because it will improve their privacy. I think WiMAX will start to allow that to happen in the unregulated ISM 5GHz band in the next years. It won't replace the ISP or "the internet" but runs parallel to it and bridges in and out of it as needed.
Clearly we are on different sides of the fence on this issue.
of course, you are a user who wants everything for nothing, you know how many times ive heard your line of reasoning before over the past 10 plus years? I couldnt tell you, ive lost count, im sure i could easily retire by now if i had 5 dollars each time though.
It could even be because that line of reasoning by the aggrieved paying customers is correct, you never know...
So well have to agree to disagree
Yep, agreed ;-)
-Andy
Andy Green:
If someone is offering a service at a particular bandwidth, I am paying the bills, then of course if I want to max out that service 24/7 I will do so.
Res:
you dont run an isp network do you, in fact youve nefver had anything to do with running of one have you :) I can tell because you have no factual grasp on reality on whats involved. If you think its a profitable business model to do a 1:1 for 70 bucks a month and flatline your conenction 24/7, then why dont you start your own ISP :) but, you have to only take on custoemrs like0mionded in other words you cant do what every otehr isp doesm and thats allow the ones paying teh same dollar as you but barely use 1G a month off-set your costs.
I don't see a problem with a customer using what they've paid for. If the ISP advertised something, and accepted the client, the customer ought to be able to do what they want with it.
Here, ISP accounts are generally limited in some way. Whether that be bytes per second, or bytes per month. I'd have no qualms about using up every last iota of my quota. I have little sympathy for ISPs overselling themselves, that's their fault. I do have sympathy for the rest of their users being overcharged to subsidise the other users (ISPs spreading the costs around, unfairly). It should be user pays, and user pays fairly.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 21:02:29 +1000, Res res@ausics.net wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
you dont run an isp network do you, in fact youve nefver had anything to do with running of one have you :) I can tell because you have no factual grasp on reality on whats involved. If you think its a profitable business model to do a 1:1 for 70 bucks a month and flatline your conenction 24/7, then why dont you start your own ISP :) but, you have to only take on custoemrs like0mionded in other words you cant do what every otehr isp doesm and thats allow the ones paying teh same dollar as you but barely use 1G a month off-set your costs.
I think the real issue is that ISPs advertise that you can download as much as you want (without explicitly stating it, but trying to give that impression) and then get in a hissy fit when someone actually tries to do this. And the worst ones won't even tell you what the limits are.
If ISPs were upfront on what their usage policy was and either enforced it themselves or explained users they would need to make sure they didn't stray outside of the usage policy (because implementing some network policies on the ISP side might be too costly) then people could make better decisions on which ISPs they wanted to do business with and which plans they wanted to purchase.
There is also an issue with bumping people over to business lines when they want to use saturate their usage and that is they usually get stuck paying for an SLA that they don't really need.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:25 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I've had two episodes of the router becoming inoperative in the last 48 hours! This router has been in operation for a year and a half without any problem at all.
That can happen with some routers when peer-to-peer software has been used and has amassed a plethora of concurrent connections.
Can I expect that activity to taper off in a few days? Each time it has happened was in the evening. First time I thought the ISP was down but four in the morning when I awoke I decided I needed to troubleshoot the problem and found it was the wireless router. I had no wired connection to the router from here so I could not make a more precise determination of what had happened, just that it wasn't communicating with the access points. Re-cycling power brought it back to its senses.
I have seen this bug with some Linksys/Cisco routers. The fix is to update the firmware on the router. For some reason the old firmware cannot take large quantites of packets. Azurius and other bittorrent clients seem to trigger the bug.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
you dont run an isp network do you, in fact youve nefver had anything to do with running of one have you :) I can tell because you have no factual grasp on reality on whats involved.
Nope, but of course I have been a customer of a few and know it well from that end.
But thats totally differentm I suggest you go work for an ISP and get a grasp of thats involved, you might actually be surprised to learn why no residential service offers a 1:1 for the price users pay.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
I don't see a problem with a customer using what they've paid for. If the ISP advertised something, and accepted the client, the customer ought to be able to do what they want with it.
Do you seriouly think, that 70 dollars a month pays for:
1/ 300 gb of internet traffic 2/ part cost recovery of physical internet links, excludes data (*N1) 3/ part cost recovery of physical isp-user links called AGVCs (*N1) 4/ part cost recovery of customer support 5/ part cost recovery of all other operating costs like phones power maintenance network and other staff etc. 6/ the DSL port (tail) 7/ as a business they like to make a littel bit of profit as well, why? because contrary to popular user belief internet service is not a god given right, it is a privilige adn ISP's are not charities.
**N1: The charges for these are decided on how large the link size is and increases with size. This cost is a large once off initial and an ongoing lesser monthly fee.
every last iota of my quota. I have little sympathy for ISPs overselling themselves, that's their fault.
Tim, they oversell because of the above, if they were to do the above and what you want, I guarantee you, you will be paying 500-700 plus dollars a month, ring around the likes of the larger well known ISP's and ask the business plan costs for 1.5 mb dsl with unlimited data.
There is a reason it costs 10 times more than residential service, because all of the above is taken into account and the user can do their 300G a month on a dedicated 1:1 path, so you do get what you pay for.
I do have sympathy for the rest of their users being overcharged to subsidise the other users (ISPs spreading the costs around, unfairly). It should be user pays, and user pays fairly.
I couldnt agree more, it shits me to tears that someone who uses 10G a month pays the same and has to offset the costs for some 100G a month leacher.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I think the real issue is that ISPs advertise that you can download as much as you want (without explicitly stating it, but trying to give that impression) and then get in a hissy fit when someone actually tries to do this. And the worst ones won't even tell you what the limits are.
This is very true, which is why no-one does it anymore, in fact the regulator insatructed that is was illegal for any ISP to do so. This wa sonly done in the very early days, they days where we could trust users to be sensible, if someone did 300GFB one month but normally only used 20-40 other months, it wouldnt matter, its when hte kiddies do it every month,well the same as everything, if you abuse it, you lose it :)
If ISPs were upfront on what their usage policy was and either enforced it themselves or explained users they would need to make sure they didn't
They are now days, an interesting fact is, there was a big shift towards ISP's that once you hit a limit you are shaped, but some ISP's are starting to re-offer if you use more than you pay for it, 5 years ago there as an ernormous outcry, now, its actually working very well and gaining customers, which is fair enough because if you use more you damned well should pay more.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:44:08 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
Do you seriouly think, that 70 dollars a month pays for:
You're focusing on the wrong question.
70 dollars a month does indeed pay for all of those things, if that is what is being advertised and sold for $70 per month. The cost to the "wholesaler" is irrelevant to the price that it's being sold to the end-user from the point of view of the end-user.
Do I seriously think that it would be reasonable for me to expect to be able to purchase a new Porsche 911 for $5000? Perhaps not, but if I needed a Porsche 911 and someone is (legally) willing to sell me one for that price then I would be foolish to turn him down and purchase one for $100,000 elsewhere.
If an ISP advertises "unlimited service" then he should not be surprised if some of his customers take him up on it. If I go to an "all-you-can-eat" buffet I expect to be able to get seconds on my dessert, too. Whether other customers ask for a second dessert, whether the waiter thinks I need a second dessert, and how much it costs the restaurant to make me a second dessert is irrelevant. "All you can eat" means just what it says.
It's not difficult to advertise the service that you are actually prepared to sell.
10GB transfer $x/month 25GB transfer $y/month 100GB transfer $z/month
Your customers can then buy the package that suits their needs and you get to cover your costs and make a buck.
However, if your competitor across town provides "unlimited service" for $x/month, then the customers may go there to get their service instead. It's called competition.
"Unlimited" has a clear dictionary meaning. If you mean "less than X GB per month" then say so. That's not unlimited.
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 08:44 +1000, Res wrote:
Do you seriouly think, that 70 dollars a month pays for:
Art thou forgetting that, e.g. $70 a month, is *per* *customer*. An ISP with 1,000 customers is raking in $70,000 a month. An ISP with 10,000 customers is raking in $700,000 a month. That's a damn good turnover, and pays for a lot of things. Don't try and make us think that ISPs operate on a shoestring budget.
Bruno Wolff III:
I think the real issue is that ISPs advertise that you can download as much as you want (without explicitly stating it, but trying to give that impression) and then get in a hissy fit when someone actually tries to do this. And the worst ones won't even tell you what the limits are.
Res:
This is very true, which is why no-one does it anymore, in fact the regulator insatructed that is was illegal for any ISP to do so.
Funny how many ISPs still advertise "unlimited" internet, though have some fine print somewhere about some limits. I'm sick of lying advertising. We even had one who'd previously avoided that sending an e-mail to their customers apologising that they were about to advertise an unlimited account, that wasn't really unlimited, simply because their competition did so and it was harming their sales not to have an account with the same name.
This wa sonly done in the very early days, they days where we could trust users to be sensible,
More like it was technically impossible for a user to download more than x bytes per month, thanks to the slow download speed.
Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 08:44 +1000, Res wrote:
Do you seriouly think, that 70 dollars a month pays for:
Art thou forgetting that, e.g. $70 a month, is *per* *customer*. An ISP with 1,000 customers is raking in $70,000 a month. An ISP with 10,000 customers is raking in $700,000 a month. That's a damn good turnover, and pays for a lot of things. Don't try and make us think that ISPs operate on a shoestring budget.
No intention to target you Tim...
Just wondering if this is still the fedora list or if I've wandered on the the economics-101 list. :-)
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:44:08 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
Do you seriouly think, that 70 dollars a month pays for:
You're focusing on the wrong question.
No im not, residential dsl/cable/dialup/whatever is all contended, no res sevice anywhere is a 1:1 regardless of how much data limits you permit, becasue at teh cheap prices you pay, its never going to be.
Your customers can then buy the package that suits their needs and you get to cover your costs and make a buck.
oh really, oh myyyyyyy god, i never knew that!!!! <extreme sarcasm>
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 08:44 +1000, Res wrote:
Do you seriouly think, that 70 dollars a month pays for:
Art thou forgetting that, e.g. $70 a month, is *per* *customer*. An ISP with 1,000 customers is raking in $70,000 a month. An ISP with 10,000
and how much do you think all those costs i mentioned come to? this might be slightly more economical if you only served custoemrs in one state with one PoP.
customers is raking in $700,000 a month. That's a damn good turnover, and pays for a lot of things. Don't try and make us think that ISPs
and thats 10 times more data usage, 10 times the network access sizes and more customer support staff, however the other staff and ongoings would remain much the same, but I can see you have no idea on the prices inmvolved, you seem to think network agvc might be a couple grand a month the way you are talking, so i might as well go tlak to my dog,or the grass
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
More like it was technically impossible for a user to download more than x bytes per month, thanks to the slow download speed.
its still technically impossiuble to be truly unlimited as your governed by teh max posible throughput of your connection.
I wont pretend to think that youll ever understand it, the only way you will is if you have responsibility to run an isp or be part of its senior management, until you do, you, Frank and whoever else that seems to think you should get everything for nothing, will never have a true idea, and i know from over 10 years in this game that i have no hope in hell of showing you otherwise so im not going to bother trying becasue your going to see it your way no mater what, what I would like to do though, is suggest you, Frank and those others should contact your ISP, and move to abusiness grade, wher eit is 1:1, where can get what bandwith you want, and i want to hear how you fair after a couple months of paying the invoice of what that costs :) Hint, with us its 550 p/m
Tim:
customers is raking in $700,000 a month. That's a damn good turnover, and pays for a lot of things. Don't try and make us think that ISPs
Res:
and thats 10 times more data usage, 10 times the network access sizes and more customer support staff, however the other staff and ongoings would remain much the same, but I can see you have no idea on the prices inmvolved, you seem to think network agvc might be a couple grand a month the way you are talking, so i might as well go tlak to my dog,or the grass
Go on then, tell us how much it costs. You're sure you know more than anyone else.
I've been in business for well over fifteen years, for myself. I'm well aware that customers don't see the costs behind things. I'm also well aware that various businesses overstate the costs of things.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:05:44 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
oh really, oh myyyyyyy god, i never knew that!!!! <extreme sarcasm>
It's quite evident that you DIDN'T know that. Else you wouldn't be arguing the point.
Sheesh.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:16:52 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
Frank and those others should contact your ISP, and move to abusiness grade, wher eit is 1:1,
Now why in the world do you think I should do something like that?
I have an excellent Internet service with unlimited usage for about $70 per month.
If you run your business by incurring unnecessary costs like you are apparently encouraging me and others to do, then it's no wonder you're crying.
Don't say you're the victim if you are the one who is advertising something that you are unable to provide.
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
I wont pretend to think that youll ever understand it, the only way you will is if you have responsibility to run an isp or be part of its senior management, until you do, you, Frank and whoever else that seems to
Just a FYI
''CTEL Mass Deploys Fiber-To-The-Home Making the Future Today in Hong Kong PR Newswire September 19, 2007: 03:28 AM EST
HONG KONG, Sept. 19 /Xinhua-PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- City Telecom (HK) Limited's wholly owned subsidiary, Hong Kong Broadband Network Limited ("HKBN") today announced a revolution in Hong Kong's broadband market, being the FIRST Internet service provider in Hong Kong to launch Fiber-To-The- Home (FTTH) residential broadband services, "FiberHome100". Significantly, HKBN has turned traditionally cost prohibitive FTTH technology into affordable mass-deployed residential service, at US$48.5 service fee for its 100Mbps access service.
After the breakthrough launch of bb1000 in 2004, HKBN is again delivering the future today. Effective immediately, HKBN will offer residential FTTH broadband services ranging from 100Mbps to 1Gbps, namely, FiberHome100, FiberHome200 and FiberHome1000, at US$48.5, US$88.2 and US$215.4 respectively.
...
Chairman of HKBN, Ricky Wong, said, "High speed broadband service (FTTH) is a foreseeable inevitability that we had prepared for 3 years ago. Holding onto to the belief that a service provider should deliver the best and most up-to-dated services available to the public, we are pleased to be able to launch the massively-deployed FTTH version of 100Mbps, 200Mbps and 1000Mbps in Hong Kong, which also contribute to further enhance Hong Kong's role as Asia's telecommunications hub." ''
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/HKW00619092007-1.htm
-Andy
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:05:44 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
oh really, oh myyyyyyy god, i never knew that!!!! <extreme sarcasm>
It's quite evident that you DIDN'T know that. Else you wouldn't be arguing the point.
Sheesh.
actually ,no, its the way every ISP tried togo, putting too much trust is L-users was every ISP's mistake, the scenario I speak about was early days, as Tim being in my country would know that there has not bene a fully truly unlimited ISP in this country for *years*
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
Go on then, tell us how much it costs. You're sure you know more than anyone else.
NDA prohibits me from publicly saying, that is *why* I suggested *you* get a job in an ISP, that way you can find out for yourself, margins are not as great as you seem think. Anyone else operating an ISP on this list would know what I'm talking about, but since this list is populated with mostly recreational users, I'd never expect 99.9%r to see it from our side of things.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
Frank and those others should contact your ISP, and move to abusiness grade, wher eit is 1:1,
Now why in the world do you think I should do something like that?
To see what the real cost of the connection and used data truly is.
I have an excellent Internet service with unlimited usage for about $70 per month.
As have our users for several years.
Don't say you're the victim if you are the one who is advertising something that you are unable to provide.
read previous post, I'm sure I did say we used to, like every ISP, and 'used to' referes to many years ago, but the same still applies in relation to costs these days.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Andy Green wrote:
Just a FYI
''CTEL Mass Deploys Fiber-To-The-Home Making the Future Today in Hong Kong PR Newswire September 19, 2007: 03:28 AM EST
Yeah, and our main carrier has been 'talking' about it for some time even if they do it, they wont offer it cheap, nor will it change the data rates they charge us much, they would be happy to allow us to have 100mbps to each home, why? because our links and agvcs in every state will need to be upgraded on a massive scale so they get a nice windfall there, and they can rape us more for all the massive increase in data use making ISP's margins even slimmer, its one of the reasons ADSL2 has not taken off as fast as they would have hoped. It would be nice if the access was cheap, and data rates fair, but thats not likely to happen in this country anytime soon.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:23:23 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
Now why in the world do you think I should do something like that?
To see what the real cost of the connection and used data truly is.
The real cost of my connection is $70 per month. I already know that. What the upstream cost to my ISP is, is completely irrelevant to me as a customer. I don't see why you have such difficulty grasping this concept.
I have an excellent Internet service with unlimited usage for about $70 per month.
As have our users for several years.
Odd. I thought you said you had a use cap and cut off your customers service if they exceeded it. Or did I get the wrong impression?
Res wrote:
What we need to see is an alternative cable route, all routes but a couple go to the US, one goes to NZ then US, one goes to HK then US, what I'd love to see is a direct link into EU, via HK or via another new submarine cable entering around Indian Ocean, when the yanks realise we have a choice, then maybe they'll lower the costs, at present there is no incentive for them to stop ripping us off.
One way to get an alternative route is to convince someone other then the yanks to put in the cable. Then one end would not be in the US.
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
One way to get an alternative route is to convince someone other then the yanks to put in the cable. Then one end would not be in the US.
The Yanks play baseball, they don't pull cables.
Maybe it started being relevant but now what in heavens name does this thread have to do with Fedora and/or Linux?
Ed Greshko wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
One way to get an alternative route is to convince someone other then the yanks to put in the cable. Then one end would not be in the US.
The Yanks play baseball, they don't pull cables.
Maybe it started being relevant but now what in heavens name does this thread have to do with Fedora and/or Linux?
About as much as Res's rants about how his ISP is being ripped off by users, upstream providers, <his current rant>. In other words, nothing at all.
Mikkel
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 20:13 +1000, Res wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Res wrote:
but you wont be getting it at the prices you pay now, hence why adsl2 services are more costly, because you can get a lot more than 300 in a month, and anyone who sits there legal or otherwise, for an entire month 24/7 doing 160-170 kB/s non stop, is more in need of a life than me :)
Hint: You need not sit in front of you monitor for the downloads to run and complete.
?? who said anything abou that, you been around long enough to know what was meant by my comment :)
I darn near have to; stuck like Chuck in the toolies with a 56k modem that I have to run at 28.8 for it to make the trip... if I go off to mow the lawn, you can bet your socks I would have been disconnected or yum wants a "Yes" when I forgot to tell it to blast away. "wget -c" is my friend nowadays. It'll resume like the old zmodem would. N I C E ! ! Even after the dnload got completely interrupted and died. She'll pick right back up where she left off. If I could get "smart' to use wget and get one file at a time while resuming from any interuption, life would be totally total. :) Ric
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 20:22 +1000, Res wrote:
But I still dont beleive that gives the users the right to treat their conenction as a 1:1, they are in a shared pool, like all ISP's run, thats why many ISP's have business grades, which are in fact 1:1, and should be because they pay for it.
The advertisers of net flick would have them believe that you, as a service provider, have nothing better to do than deliver their content. Do you get paid by them, when all of your gear is pumping away like a steam engine playing delivery boy for movies over the internet?? Then your users expect you to bark like a seal, <arf! arf!> for no fish, when the content doesn't stream fast enough?? I've always wondered who benefits. And, who doesn't. And, how is the net supposed to handle that volume of ever increasing data? Ric
Tim:
Go on then, tell us how much it costs. You're sure you know more than anyone else.
Res:
NDA prohibits me from publicly saying, that is *why* I suggested *you* get a job in an ISP, that way you can find out for yourself, margins are not as great as you seem think. Anyone else operating an ISP on this list would know what I'm talking about, but since this list is populated with mostly recreational users, I'd never expect 99.9%r to see it from our side of things.
Nup, I'm calling your bluff. If you want to argue that ISP costs are really prohibitive, *you* provide some numbers.
Equipment costs are divided amongst users and spread across years (capacity for concurrent users, data transfer, etc., are all a shared load). You sound like one of those who expect their clients to pay for all their equipment costs within two months, and have a 1000% profit margin.
Yes, I've seen those in computer industries who cry poor, but have a Porche in the car park, and have essentially a lazy work life with hours and working locations of their own choosing.
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 21:27 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
If I could get "smart' to use wget and get one file at a time while resuming from any interuption, life would be totally total. :) Ric
This is when you start scripting, even just a simple one like writing:
#!/bin/bash wget -c http://example.com/file1 wget -c http://example.com/file2
and so on...
You start it off, pasting in the collection of files you need, one per line, leave it to do its own thing.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:23:23 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
Now why in the world do you think I should do something like that?
To see what the real cost of the connection and used data truly is.
The real cost of my connection is $70 per month. I already know that. What the upstream cost to my ISP is, is completely irrelevant to me as a customer. I don't see why you have such difficulty grasping this concept.
exactly, you dont care, just like we dont when you complain about limited to 30-50 GB a month, its funny though, if a network has a problem (touch wood its been along time), the customers seem to think its their right to know what it was, what caused it and ins and outs of everything else, of course they get told its none of their concern, if it works it working.
Odd. I thought you said you had a use cap and cut off your customers service if they exceeded it. Or did I get the wrong impression?
you certainly did get wrong impression, i'm an asshole, I know it and admit it, but im not THAT much of an asshole :)
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Res wrote:
What we need to see is an alternative cable route, all routes but a couple go to the US, one goes to NZ then US, one goes to HK then US, what I'd love to see is a direct link into EU, via HK or via another new submarine cable entering around Indian Ocean, when the yanks realise we have a choice, then maybe they'll lower the costs, at present there is no incentive for them to stop ripping us off.
One way to get an alternative route is to convince someone other then the yanks to put in the cable. Then one end would not be in the US.
the yanks, go in partnership with prime carrier, although as the second largest carrier has stropng asian ties, we might start to see a change in the future after all
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Ed Greshko wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
One way to get an alternative route is to convince someone other then the yanks to put in the cable. Then one end would not be in the US.
The Yanks play baseball, they don't pull cables.
Maybe it started being relevant but now what in heavens name does this thread have to do with Fedora and/or Linux?
About as much as Res's rants about how his ISP is being ripped off by users, upstream providers, <his current rant>. In other words, nothing at all.
Mikkel
just like your post, you habe just contributed to more noise.
pot kettle black
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Ric Moore wrote:
the content doesn't stream fast enough?? I've always wondered who benefits. And, who doesn't. And, how is the net supposed to handle that volume of ever increasing data? Ric
we just pull out the petty cash tin with out trillions of dollars of profits (according to some anyway) and upgrade :P
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
a job in an ISP, that way you can find out for yourself, margins are not as great as you seem think. Anyone else operating an ISP on this list would know what I'm talking about, but since this list is populated with mostly recreational users, I'd never expect 99.9%r to see it from our side of things.
Nup, I'm calling your bluff. If you want to argue that ISP costs are really prohibitive, *you* provide some numbers.
and, do you really think i am going to tell you? I dont have to justify myself to anyone, no ISP administrator has to, especially to a bunch of rednecks on some lame mailing list, im not that stupid to have myself face court for breach of disclosure. I have however told you how to find out, but i guess that means you cant "chest beat" in public so you consider you have no point or need in doing so, becasue were you to do so, you too would be under a NDA.
Yes, I've seen those in computer industries who cry poor, but have a Porche in the car park, and have essentially a lazy work life with hours
thats not the average ISP, contrary to your funny little minds thoughs, a lot of drive $30K cars, and work 12 plus hours a day 6 or 7 days a week, some of the smaller ISP's owner/admis work 18 hours a day 7 days a week, maybe taking christmas day off as a bonus and easter if they are lucky.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:20:06 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
I dont have to justify myself to anyone, no ISP administrator has to
Your boss, your shareholders, your customers. Every one of them has a right to ask you to justify yourself in one way or another. Make no mistake about it.
Coming here and blowing smoke about how hard done by you are by your customers and how nobody understands you. My my, poor baby indeed.
When you are asked to back up your ranting with facts, you immediately back off and say "I can't tell you." Well, if you can't tell us, then STOP TELLING US!
You're making yourself appear a fool.
especially to a bunch of rednecks on some lame mailing list
I'm glad you have such a high opinion of us, and of this mailing list in general.
Mind telling us why you're still hanging about, if we're all so stupid and lame? I'm sure there is a high-and-mighty mailing list somewhere that would suit you better, and the rest of us idiots can go on with our regular technical discussions.
You have no idea what most of us do for a living, and what kind of experience we may or may not have. Again, you're making a fool of yourself. There is always someone, somewhere, who is bigger than you are; there is always someone who is smarter than you are and who has more experience than you have.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:06:44 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
How do you reconcile this:
exactly, you dont care, just like we dont when you complain about limited to 30-50 GB a month
with this:
Odd. I thought you said you had a use cap and cut off your customers service if they exceeded it. Or did I get the wrong impression?
you certainly did get wrong impression, i'm an asshole, I know it and admit it, but im not THAT much of an asshole :)
On a somewhat related note:
its funny though, if a network has a problem (touch wood its been along time), the customers seem to think its their right to know what it was, what caused it and ins and outs of everything else, of course they get told its none of their concern, if it works it working.
And if it's not working then I assume that in the absence of a valid reason being offered, you offer your customers a full refund or credit for the period that your service is unavailable?
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:20 +1000, Res wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
a job in an ISP, that way you can find out for yourself, margins are not as great as you seem think. Anyone else operating an ISP on this list would know what I'm talking about, but since this list is populated with mostly recreational users, I'd never expect 99.9%r to see it from our side of things.
Nup, I'm calling your bluff. If you want to argue that ISP costs are really prohibitive, *you* provide some numbers.
and, do you really think i am going to tell you? I dont have to justify myself to anyone, no ISP administrator has to, especially to a bunch of rednecks on some lame mailing list, im not that stupid to have myself face court for breach of disclosure. I have however told you how to find out, but i guess that means you cant "chest beat" in public so you consider you have no point or need in doing so, becasue were you to do so, you too would be under a NDA.
Yes, I've seen those in computer industries who cry poor, but have a Porche in the car park, and have essentially a lazy work life with hours
thats not the average ISP, contrary to your funny little minds thoughs, a lot of drive $30K cars, and work 12 plus hours a day 6 or 7 days a week, some of the smaller ISP's owner/admis work 18 hours a day 7 days a week, maybe taking christmas day off as a bonus and easter if they are lucky.
Yeah, I can see that happening. But my first reaction is still, "Damn, son, stop taking things so seriously. You're not a thoracic surgeon saving lives around the clock. Seventy or more hours a week so some pimply-faced script-kiddie can seed porn torrents and r00t another bot-net droid, or so Grandaddy Mike can email a 300MB video clip of grandbaby number 2 feeding itself dog biscuits to 49 of his closest friends, or en1arg your p3ni5 now! or, ... Christ, you get the picture."
If that's the life you're forced into, you have my condolences. Truly. If that's the life you've *chosen* for yourself,
<SLAP>
now go to your room and reflect on that a bit.
Andy
Res wrote:
About as much as Res's rants about how his ISP is being ripped off by users, upstream providers, <his current rant>. In other words, nothing at all.
Mikkel
just like your post, you habe just contributed to more noise.
What, you are the only one allowed to contribute to the noise?
pot kettle black
Yup - I guess you didn't understand what I wrote...
Mikkel
Tim:
Nup, I'm calling your bluff. If you want to argue that ISP costs are really prohibitive, *you* provide some numbers.
Res:
and, do you really think i am going to tell you?
No, not really, it's not your style to back up your rants with facts. I expected you to continue blustering, and you have.
I dont have to justify myself to anyone,
Well, actually you do. You were the one who tried to argue that we didn't know how much it costs, that it was more than we thought it was. Unless you come up with the figures, you can't prove your point. Not that we care, we don't think much of your arguments, I certainly don't. If you can't back them up with facts, they're invalid. This isn't a theology debate.
I don't particulary care how much *your* ISP pays, but if you want any of us to believe that you're not just blowing smoke, you'd have to say the sorts of costs for the type of equipment, and what it's capacity is. That sort of thing is *not* secret information.
If we believed you, we'd have to believe that most ISPs are virtually bankrupt. But yet they manage to keep being in business, somehow.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:20:06 +1000 (EST) Res res@ausics.net wrote:
I dont have to justify myself to anyone, no ISP administrator has to
Your boss, your shareholders, your customers. Every one of them has a right to ask you to justify yourself in one way or another. Make no mistake about it.
my boss does thats it, customers have no right to demand to know ins and outs of anything
Coming here and blowing smoke about how hard done by you are by your customers and how nobody understands you. My my, poor baby indeed.
i wouldnt expect a mob of fuckwit pr0n seeking lamers to understand, i gave my point of view, it differs to hte pr0n kings like you, that doesnt bother me, ive learnt over 10 years you cant tell a spammer what they are doing is spamming, its much the same dealing with warez and pr0n leaching maggots
Mind telling us why you're still hanging about, if we're all so stupid and lame? I'm sure there is a high-and-mighty mailing list somewhere that would
becasue i enjoy feeding trolls when im bored
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
And if it's not working then I assume that in the absence of a valid reason being offered, you offer your customers a full refund or credit for the period that your service is unavailable?
its not been unavailable in years that i recall, and anytime it has failed has been because of carriers issues, if tehy dont like it they are free to fuck off to anotehr isp anytime they want
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Andrew Kelly wrote:
pts rule name description
3.1 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis
Andrew your message is marked as spam so i cant reply with quotes but no i dont sit there serving the pr0n kings, we have many business customers and like many businesses they are not limited to 9a-5p mon-fri :)
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Nup, I'm calling your bluff. If you want to argue that ISP costs are really prohibitive, *you* provide some numbers.
Res:
and, do you really think i am going to tell you?
No, not really, it's not your style to back up your rants with facts. I expected you to continue blustering, and you have.
i aint going to face a law suite to prove shit to some wanka on a mailing list, i know it fact anyone who runs an isp/osp/asp would know what im talknig about, i never expect L-users like you to understand
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 22:35 +1000, Res wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Andrew Kelly wrote:
pts rule name description
3.1 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis
Andrew your message is marked as spam so i cant reply with quotes but no i dont sit there serving the pr0n kings, we have many business customers and like many businesses they are not limited to 9a-5p mon-fri :)
This one will probably get caught as well because of your own inclusion, sorry.
Nice filter, Res. As you can see from my post, I meant penis, but I didn't actually say penis.
Well, I did now. Twice, in fact.
penis penis penis
Business customers? Yeah, I get that. But I swear you were displaying some anger in this thread about p2p droids eating up your bandwidth? Sorry, can't find an actual quote for you, I've deleted my archive and don't feel like searching online. No big deal though.
Andy
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Andrew Kelly wrote:
This one will probably get caught as well because of your own inclusion, sorry.
Nice filter, Res. As you can see from my post, I meant penis, but I didn't actually say penis.
Well, I did now. Twice, in fact.
penis penis penis
hahahaha you should go see your misses ;)
Business customers? Yeah, I get that. But I swear you were displaying some anger in this thread about p2p droids eating up your bandwidth? Sorry, can't find an actual quote for you, I've deleted my archive and don't feel like searching online. No big deal though.
have a mixture of both, but p2p droids do account for most every isps bandwith, they are ones responsible for you all paying so much :)
personally i've alwyas found ftp more reliable
Tim:
Nup, I'm calling your bluff. If you want to argue that ISP costs are really prohibitive, *you* provide some numbers.
Res:
and, do you really think i am going to tell you?
Tim:
No, not really, it's not your style to back up your rants with facts. I expected you to continue blustering, and you have.
Res:
i aint going to face a law suite to prove shit to some wanka on a mailing list, i know it fact anyone who runs an isp/osp/asp would know what im talknig about, i never expect L-users like you to understand
The "wanka" is you. I really hope that the next person to employ you does a google search on you. They'll see that all you can do is rant and rave at everyone, giving them the "I know far more than you all do," speech, but having absolutely nothing to back it up, while being a total asshole in the process.
I gave you a way to prove your point, without releasing confidential information, but you can't manage that, so I don't believe you know anything about what you claim.
Any other person who worked for an ISP would quite easily have said we use gear like Cisco whatevers, that handle x-number of concurrent connections of 1 twiddly-bytes per connection, and whatnot, worth in the range of x-thousand dollars. Giving generically verifiable information without disclosing anything confidential. It's not as if the type of equipment used by ISPs, nor its list cost, is a trade secret. But, nooooo, you think you win an argument without actually substantiating yourself, in any way, what so ever. Stupidly trying to asert that it "costs more than you think it does" just doesn't wash. If you weren't prepared to validate your claim, you should never have tried to make one in the first place.
Sorry, but that sort of behaviour places you firmly in the "clueless ranter pretending to be something" box. I don't believe you work where you claim, I don't believe you really know the costs involved. And I can't think of any reason why anyone else on here would believe you, either. I certainly can't believe that anyone with any self-worth in a position of responsibility working in an ISP would come onto a public mailing list and troll like you do. And your inability to spell, or at least type, very well doesn't really sound like someone who would work in that sort of position, either. If you do work in an ISP, which I seriously doubt, I couldn't imagine you in any position other than one of the trained monkeys reading the clueless support scripts on the helpline.
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 22:32 +1000, Res wrote:
customers have no right to demand to know ins and outs of anything
They certainly do have the right to know what they're paying for. You work for them. That's where the money comes from. You seem to have as little business sense as you have tact and manners.
Sure, I wouldn't expect to spend an hour on the phone explaining the nitty gritty of how a failed transistor on the main router caused a failure, if a customer wanted to know why they couldn't get anything to work for an hour. But it'd be fair to expect to have to explain that some of the equipment had failed, and it did take an hour to notice the fault, and a while longer to repair things.
Your attitude is the same as the jackasses at Optus, Telstra, and any number of other biggish ISPs that I could name: Screw the customers. Everything is their (the customer's) fault, nothing ever goes wrong at the service provider, it's all perfect (that's why they don't employ any repairmen, because they don't need any). If you hedge your customers like your attitude on this list, I've no wonder that you'll have customers trying to get a straight answer out of you.
On the other hand, I could cheerfully recommend the staff at a former ISP, Picknowl, who if you rang and said you're having problems. They'd not blame the customer, and would honestly say they didn't know there was a problem, and go and check. Or admit that they did know of one, and give you a sensible answer about it. You didn't spend half an hour arguing with the staff.
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:42:30 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Sorry, but that sort of behaviour places you firmly in the "clueless ranter pretending to be something" box.
I think you've got it there, Tim.
He initially presented himself as someone who "knows stuff", someone whose opinions and ideas would be worth listening to and learning from.
Unfortunately, he turned out to be an ignorant fool trying to impress others with a shallow facade of wishful thinking and imaginary facts. And rude, too.
Oh well. Now we know and can deal with him (ignore him) accordingly.
Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:42:30 +0930 Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Sorry, but that sort of behaviour places you firmly in the "clueless ranter pretending to be something" box.
I think you've got it there, Tim.
He initially presented himself as someone who "knows stuff", someone whose opinions and ideas would be worth listening to and learning from.
Unfortunately, he turned out to be an ignorant fool trying to impress others with a shallow facade of wishful thinking and imaginary facts. And rude, too.
Oh well. Now we know and can deal with him (ignore him) accordingly.
Actually this is a case of "fool me twice, shame on me". He has posted to this list before and we should have recognized that and ignored him from the very start. :-(
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Tim wrote:
The "wanka" is you. I really hope that the next person to employ you
Dount it,, hey i'm all for giving you all the evidence and proof of the facts i claim, just as soon as you deposit 1 million in my bank account becasue that probably what Optus will screw me for if i breach NDA.
I gave you a way to prove your point, without releasing confidential
As I you , you also didnt want it, your a troll tim, an argumentitive twit just for teh sake of it when you know fully fucking well what happens if i breach an NDA.
too much ranting below so i cant be bothered reading it, sincve it wont make any difference anyway no master what I say, or what you say
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 22:32 +1000, Res wrote:
customers have no right to demand to know ins and outs of anything
They certainly do have the right to know what they're paying for. You work for them. That's where the money comes from. You seem to have as little business sense as you have tact and manners.
you would be surprised , jsut because i speak my mind and dont give a rats ass on whats said on here, doesnt mean im this way everywhere, my heavy posting on industry lists shows I am diffferent, because on there i dont have to deal with with the wankas i do here
Your attitude is the same as the jackasses at Optus, Telstra, and any number of other biggish ISPs that I could name: Screw the customers.
ahhh now it comes out, you are a typical whinger, I could retire if I had 1 buck for each of your kind ive come accross
ISP, Picknowl, who if you rang and said you're having problems. They'd
you know why? because in 99.7% of the times it IS the customers fault. now be it customer directly, or somthing pathetic like a m$ update that has screwed with things, when SP2 came out it caused no end of troubles, idiot customers who complain i.p.nu.m.ber is DoSing them gues swhat its the DNS server responding to THEIR querries, " i cant get to anywhere" oh your firewall has blocked the DNS servers,, if only you know teh idiocy of most Lusers, but i dont expect you would or ever will so its pretty muh pointless contrinueing on with a one-sided goose like you timothy.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Actually this is a case of "fool me twice, shame on me". He has posted to this list before and we should have recognized that and ignored him from the very start. :-(
Ed yes you of all people on this list know i've been on it for years and when i post i always speak my mind, wtf should i "walk on cotton wool" if somethings there to be said, say it and say it by not beating about the bush. I've called ppl trolls before and I've been called a troll before, doesnt bother me, i never take anything no public forums/lists personally, arguing sometimes helps pass time :)
Res wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Tim wrote:
The "wanka" is you. I really hope that the next person to employ you
Dount it,, hey i'm all for giving you all the evidence and proof of the facts i claim, just as soon as you deposit 1 million in my bank account becasue that probably what Optus will screw me for if i breach NDA.
I gave you a way to prove your point, without releasing confidential
As I you , you also didnt want it, your a troll tim, an argumentitive twit just for teh sake of it when you know fully fucking well what happens if i breach an NDA.
too much ranting below so i cant be bothered reading it, sincve it wont make any difference anyway no master what I say, or what you say
As a person who years ago had 4 safes in my office all Top Secret, I learned long ago if I have something I'm not able to talk about, I never let ANYONE know I have it. Announcing you have an NDA is childish and stupid.
Res wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Actually this is a case of "fool me twice, shame on me". He has posted to this list before and we should have recognized that and ignored him from the very start. :-(
Ed yes you of all people on this list know i've been on it for years and when i post i always speak my mind, wtf should i "walk on cotton wool" if somethings there to be said, say it and say it by not beating about the bush. I've called ppl trolls before and I've been called a troll before, doesnt bother me, i never take anything no public forums/lists personally, arguing sometimes helps pass time :)
But, if you want to be taken seriously you really should not "rant". You should present your views in a clear, concise manner and backed up with verifiable facts. Also, IMHO, posting with careless typos and use of SMS style abbreviations will also lead some to dismiss your posts as sloppy and ill conceived. It is not a stretch to come to a conclusion that sloppy posts=sloppy workmanship. The attitude of "I speak my mind and don't care what people think about me" is exactly why your rants can be dismissed out of hand by some.
FWIW, I've signed many an NDA in my life time and it is not so hard to present facts about a situation without violating the spirit of the NDA.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Karl Larsen wrote:
As a person who years ago had 4 safes in my office all Top Secret, I learned long ago if I have something I'm not able to talk about, I never let ANYONE know I have it. Announcing you have an NDA is childish and stupid.
Hardly, anyone who has anything to do with it infrastructure, would most likely be on one, and tis very common knowledge
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
But, if you want to be taken seriously you really should not "rant". You should present your views in a clear, concise manner and backed up with verifiable facts. Also, IMHO, posting with careless typos and use of SMS
the way to do that is produce figures which we both know i can not do. although i truly would love to just to throw it in someones face :)
style abbreviations will also lead some to dismiss your posts as sloppy and
err, this is not a legal document, its not a report of any form therefore i dont really care about typos, if this was a proper conducted email conversation youd see how i repsond completely different to here, i dont care if anyone takes me seriously or calls me a troll, i dont care if you are the only one who ever reads this post, ive always bene like it and well, at my age its hard to change.
FWIW, I've signed many an NDA in my life time and it is not so hard to present facts about a situation without violating the spirit of the NDA.
he wants me to produce figures, thats what he wants, and thats what will get be s crewed, no way around it, if i produce em i would expect to be screwed, furthermore this NDA has an expire time of 30 years after me departure, to which wont matter too much given my age i wont be around then anyway :)
Res wrote:
style abbreviations will also lead some to dismiss your posts as sloppy and
err, this is not a legal document, its not a report of any form therefore i dont really care about typos, if this was a proper conducted email conversation youd see how i repsond completely different to here, i dont care if anyone takes me seriously or calls me a troll, i dont care if you are the only one who ever reads this post, ive always bene like it and well, at my age its hard to change.
Well, it may not be a legal document...but it does say something about who you are. It is similar to wearing clean clothes when you go to visit friends, family, employers, etc. I suppose you also don't care about how you look and how that affects people's impression of you.
I'm not quite sure you care about much.
FWIW, it is not hard to change at any age. All it requires is the realization that change is needed and a desire to change. My Dad is 80 and he still determines that change is needed from time to time.
FWIW, I've signed many an NDA in my life time and it is not so hard to present facts about a situation without violating the spirit of the NDA.
he wants me to produce figures, thats what he wants, and thats what will get be s crewed, no way around it, if i produce em i would expect to be screwed, furthermore this NDA has an expire time of 30 years after me departure, to which wont matter too much given my age i wont be around then anyway :)
Well, then you are not as creative as I thought you could be. As I've said, I have signed many an NDA and yet have been able to use the information gleaned in the projects to the advantage in other projects without violating the terms and conditions of the NDA. The first step is not to start the discussion by saying..."When I worked at Quest.....".
FWIW, in a previous post you said:
"you know why? because in 99.7% of the times it IS the customers fault."
You do go on and seem to say that the customer may not be directly at fault...but even then you seem to be placing blame on their shoulders. If that is your attitude and that is what you truly feel about "customers" then I would be happy not to be one of your customers.
It is almost like saying it is the "Fedora customer's fault" when they do "yum update" and their USB ports no longer function.
The problem may be "at the customer's end" but the blame lies not with the customer.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Well, then you are not as creative as I thought you could be. As I've said,
I might be carefree at time, but beleive it or not i'm not stupid :) I know when and when not to take risks.
FWIW, in a previous post you said:
"you know why? because in 99.7% of the times it IS the customers fault."
You do go on and seem to say that the customer may not be directly at fault...but even then you seem to be placing blame on their shoulders. If that is your attitude and that is what you truly feel about "customers" then I would be happy not to be one of your customers.
Correct, how is it ISPs problem that micro$lop sent out a screwed update, how is it our fault that the users use zone alarm and blocks our DNS, we provide Internet Access, we are not hand holders nor teachers of PC's, there are institutions out there that specialise in that, in this country your avg council run library has these courses, I'm sure they have teh same elsewhere, so it might possibly not be the customers fault but its also not our fault that somthing on your pc is preventing you from using the net.
It is almost like saying it is the "Fedora customer's fault" when they do "yum update" and their USB ports no longer function.
The problem may be "at the customer's end" but the blame lies not with the customer.
it certainly does not lie with the service providor either, ISP's run "technical support" not micro$lop support, or to be fair, linux or bsd support, however the people that use linux and bsd generally know what they are doing and dont need to call tech support just because they have no idea on how to configure pine or evolution or kmail etc, it is the CSR's job to provide the settings for services, like DNS ip's, pop3/smtp homepage access for members, etc, its not our place to teach you how to use those programs
Res wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Well, then you are not as creative as I thought you could be. As I've said,
I might be carefree at time, but beleive it or not i'm not stupid :) I know when and when not to take risks.
Then you should also know not to present something as "fact" when you can't support it with verifiable data. Saying something is "true" doesn't make it so.
FWIW, in a previous post you said:
"you know why? because in 99.7% of the times it IS the customers fault."
You do go on and seem to say that the customer may not be directly at fault...but even then you seem to be placing blame on their shoulders. If that is your attitude and that is what you truly feel about "customers" then I would be happy not to be one of your customers.
Correct, how is it ISPs problem that micro$lop sent out a screwed update, how is it our fault that the users use zone alarm and blocks our DNS, we provide Internet Access, we are not hand holders nor teachers of PC's, there are institutions out there that specialise in that, in this country your avg council run library has these courses, I'm sure they have teh same elsewhere, so it might possibly not be the customers fault but its also not our fault that somthing on your pc is preventing you from using the net.
Yup, don't want to be one of your customers.
The one thing I do miss about living in the US, especially the mid-west, is when you walk into a store and ask them if they "x" and they "no" or "we are out of stock" and then they tell you what store in the area may have what you're seeking.
While it "isn't" their problem they go the extra mile to help. I believe it is what some people refer to as "service".
It is almost like saying it is the "Fedora customer's fault" when they do "yum update" and their USB ports no longer function.
The problem may be "at the customer's end" but the blame lies not with the customer.
it certainly does not lie with the service providor either, ISP's run "technical support" not micro$lop support, or to be fair, linux or bsd support, however the people that use linux and bsd generally know what they are doing and dont need to call tech support just because they have no idea on how to configure pine or evolution or kmail etc, it is the CSR's job to provide the settings for services, like DNS ip's, pop3/smtp homepage access for members, etc, its not our place to teach you how to use those programs
Sounds like you and Wally would make good cubical mates.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Then you should also know not to present something as "fact" when you can't support it with verifiable data. Saying something is "true" doesn't make it so.
I can support it, but not on a pulbic list adn you can repeat your statement as often as you like, i really dont care becasue my network runs smoothly i have a lot of time to repeat teh same stuff as well
Correct, how is it ISPs problem that micro$lop sent out a screwed update, how is it our fault that the users use zone alarm and blocks our DNS, we provide Internet Access, we are not hand holders nor teachers of PC's, there are institutions out there that specialise in that, in this country your avg council run library has these courses, I'm sure they have teh same elsewhere, so it might possibly not be the customers fault but its also not our fault that somthing on your pc is preventing you from using the net.
Yup, don't want to be one of your customers.
so you expect us to support every facet of your pc? what part of ISP's are not there to teach you how to use a PC cant you comprehend? we dont sell them, nor do we wrote the software you use, if anyone has that obligation is the store that you bought your pc from... next youll be crying foul our cust support staff refuse to show you how to use excel *sigh* and dont worry about not wanting to be one my customers, i dont wont you to be one :)
While it "isn't" their problem they go the extra mile to help. I believe it is what some people refer to as "service".
thats not quite the same, unless they walk up the road showing them personally where those stores are, in which case their manager should be asking when do they have time to help the customers who are buying from them, oh wait, maybe thats why some ISP's tech support lines can keep people on hold for an hour before someone can get to them, microsoft wrote the crap 95% of customers use, if there pc retailer can not help, then they need to call m$ support. m$ do not pay us or give us any kickback for teaching someone how to use their software, so we sure as hell wont be doing it.
Res wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Then you should also know not to present something as "fact" when you can't support it with verifiable data. Saying something is "true" doesn't make it so.
I can support it, but not on a pulbic list adn you can repeat your statement as often as you like, i really dont care becasue my network runs smoothly i have a lot of time to repeat teh same stuff as well
OK... Send me the data directly.
so you expect us to support every facet of your pc? what part of ISP's are not there to teach you how to use a PC cant you comprehend? we dont sell them, nor do we wrote the software you use, if anyone has that obligation is the store that you bought your pc from... next youll be crying foul our cust support staff refuse to show you how to use excel *sigh* and dont worry about not wanting to be one my customers, i dont wont you to be one :)
Not *every* aspect. However, it is rather funny that even here in Taiwan when a user has problems with their connectivity and they contact the ISP the ISP will work with them to determine the problem even if the problem was caused by an update from Microsoft and even to 3rd party firewalls. SeedNet is one of the best at it. Their techies keep up to date on things and ask detailed and pertinent questions. They have no obligation to do that. They are just service oriented.
While it "isn't" their problem they go the extra mile to help. I believe it is what some people refer to as "service".
thats not quite the same, unless they walk up the road showing them personally where those stores are, in which case their manager should be asking when do they have time to help the customers who are buying from them, oh wait, maybe thats why some ISP's tech support lines can keep people on hold for an hour before someone can get to them, microsoft wrote the crap 95% of customers use, if there pc retailer can not help, then they need to call m$ support. m$ do not pay us or give us any kickback for teaching someone how to use their software, so we sure as hell wont be doing it.
Ahh...you're in it only for the money and don't think twice about customer or brand loyalty.
FWIW, in the stores of Minneapolis/St. Paul it is often the manager that would direct me to another store...even if it was a competitor. I made it a point to shop in that helpful store and suggest others go there as well.
Wally is waiting for you.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
statement as often as you like, i really dont care becasue my network runs smoothly i have a lot of time to repeat teh same stuff as well
OK... Send me the data directly.
hahahah and have you forward it to the list :) sure :P
so you expect us to support every facet of your pc?
Not *every* aspect. However, it is rather funny that even here in Taiwan when a user has problems with their connectivity and they contact the ISP the ISP will work with them to determine the problem even if the problem was caused by an update from Microsoft and even to 3rd party firewalls. SeedNet is one of the best at it. Their techies keep up to date on things and ask detailed and pertinent questions. They have no obligation to do that. They are just service oriented.
thats them, and its because of their actions the lieks of m$ get richer, not having to supply support, why should they when many of the isp's around will do it for them, Bill Gates must be pissing himself he's laughing that hard. If our guys determine its not our network or carriers network, thats it, they might make suggestions to the customers but they are not going to sit there for an hour talking them through actions, they are paid by the company to do internet service technical support, not be someone private it tutor.
Ahh...you're in it only for the money and don't think twice about customer or brand loyalty.
what the hell do you think isps are in business for? isps' are not charities, I learnt by personal experience many years ago loyalty means nothing to customers, they are all supportive of you, sure, until you make a move that they dislike, like even a pissy 5 dollar service access increase, the first one on 2.5 years, enforced because the carrier charged ane xtra 5 bux to access the dslam port, they are among the first to turn on you.
FWIW, in the stores of Minneapolis/St. Paul it is often the manager that would direct me to another store...even if it was a competitor. I made it a point to shop in that helpful store and suggest others go there as well.
good on em, now, get back to on this topic and show me a single ISP that does it, and that condones their staff doing it.
Wally is waiting for you.
who or what is wally?
Res wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
statement as often as you like, i really dont care becasue my network runs smoothly i have a lot of time to repeat teh same stuff as well
OK... Send me the data directly.
hahahah and have you forward it to the list :) sure :P
No, I won't. I'll even sign an NDA.
I will verify your data and simply state if your data stands up.
So, put up, or....
Oh, I hope you don't mind....but I deleted the rubbish response...
Wally is waiting for you.
who or what is wally?
Hummm.... A supposed techie that doesn't read Dilbert?
I'm done here and await your data. I won't be holding my breath.
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 08:42 +1000, Res wrote:
so its pretty muh pointless contrinueing on with a one-sided goose like you
Pot kettle black. You've shown your true colours, as an incoherent accusational ranter, with an opinion up his ass that everyone is to blame but yourself, and for all to see on a permanantly archived location. Well done.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 08:42 +1000, Res wrote:
so its pretty muh pointless contrinueing on with a one-sided goose like you
Pot kettle black. You've shown your true colours, as an incoherent accusational ranter, with an opinion up his ass that everyone is to blame but yourself, and for all to see on a permanantly archived location. Well done.
As is your ranting timothy, for all 'who are considering employing you' at some time to see as well. They should consider that you will breach their policy and show the internal operational figures.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
OK... Send me the data directly.
hahahah and have you forward it to the list :) sure :P
No, I won't. I'll even sign an NDA.
I will verify your data and simply state if your data stands up.
you will be unable to verify my data, unless you work for Singtel/Optus because for me to tell you the per dslam port cost, the AGVC and dark fibre costs alone you need to know thats what they charge, not to mention our operations costs. But if you worked for Optus then you wouldnt be asking me, because you'd know already how cut throat things are and we wouldnt have had 85% of this thread :)
who or what is wally?
Hummm.... A supposed techie that doesn't read Dilbert?
nope, maybe in U.S its common not here, maybe its even common in Taiwan, wouldn't have a clue, never been to either.
Res wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
OK... Send me the data directly.
hahahah and have you forward it to the list :) sure :P
No, I won't. I'll even sign an NDA.
I will verify your data and simply state if your data stands up.
you will be unable to verify my data, unless you work for Singtel/Optus because for me to tell you the per dslam port cost, the AGVC and dark fibre costs alone you need to know thats what they charge, not to mention our operations costs. But if you worked for Optus then you wouldnt be asking me, because you'd know already how cut throat things are and we wouldnt have had 85% of this thread :)
Or have contacts at Singtel. I can check your supposed data for accuracy without revealing the source.
who or what is wally?
Hummm.... A supposed techie that doesn't read Dilbert?
nope, maybe in U.S its common not here, maybe its even common in Taiwan, wouldn't have a clue, never been to either.
Dilbert appears in over 2000 newspapers worldwide in 65 countries and 25 languages. Your experience in this respect appears to be at the same level as you other "experience".
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
No, I won't. I'll even sign an NDA.
I will verify your data and simply state if your data stands up.
our QC advises me that I can not enforce an NDA with you being a non citizen or resident on my country..read on..
you will be unable to verify my data, unless you work for Singtel/Optus
Or have contacts at Singtel. I can check your supposed data for accuracy without revealing the source.
in that case you dont need me to produce figures, your contacts can directly tell you this information
Dilbert appears in over 2000 newspapers worldwide in 65 countries and 25
maybe some of us have better things to do then read newspapers, i never read them, becuase its always old news just rehashed of what ive watched on tv late the night before.
Res wrote:
maybe some of us have better things to do then read newspapers, i never read them, becuase its always old news just rehashed of what ive watched on tv late the night before.
You get all of your in-depth news analysis from TV sound bites? Now I am beginning to understand your short comings.
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Res wrote:
maybe some of us have better things to do then read newspapers, i never read them, becuase its always old news just rehashed of what ive watched on tv late the night before.
You get all of your in-depth news analysis from TV sound bites? Now I am beginning to understand your short comings.
when i was a young kid, i used to work for rupert, i know that print media beat things up a lot to sell, sensationalise beyond belief stories, lets not let a little thing called truth or even fact get in that way of a large page 1 headline to grab those 'walkers past' to pick up a copy, when again its all just their version of yesterdays events, events we watched either 6pm or 1030pm the night before, even later with overnight bulletins on cable, back then the only thing i read in print media was when i was looking for my first car, and rental properties, ... now today, paper is not needed for either :)
I'd give it 10 years or so and print media will not be a part of our lives in most countries. In fact I saw a documentary last year that had a story about an isolated South African town, that had no internet access, no paper or mail, they had a weekly delivery of a disk that had news and mail on it, mail out was sent the same way, very interesting, it shows that, as poor as that town seems in one way, they are far more advanced in others, well done to them. (from memory it was a BBC documentary)
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Ed Greshko wrote:
Res wrote:
when i was a young kid, i used to work for rupert,
That also explains a lot....
:)
-
Alan -
Alan Cox -
Andrew Kelly -
Andy Green -
Bob Goodwin -
Bruno Wolff III -
David -
Ed Greshko -
Frank Cox -
Kam Leo -
Karl Larsen -
Mikkel -
Peter Koinange -
Res -
Ric Moore -
Robert Nichols -
Robin Laing -
Tim -
Vivek J. Patankar