Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Alex Balashov wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/richard_bennett_utorrent_udp/ FUD? Interesting? Boring? New news? Old news? Seems the sky isn't falling (yet). The original article didn't have the full story, here's an update... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/05/richard_bennett_bittorrent_udp/ regards, Drew -- Drew Gibson Systems Administrator OANDA Corporation www.oanda.com ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Ira wrote: At 12:44 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote: At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to find ways of punishing them. What happens if everyone who owns a car drives it at the same time? Owns a telephone and uses it at the same time? If I could get the same plan for my internet as I get for my phones, a few dollars a month plus a bit per minute(megabyte), I'd be all over it, but even better, then the provider wouldn't have to care as they'd be making a fair profit no matter what the user did. You make that sound almost reasonable. I'm sure initial pricing would only be slightly higher for the majority of customers with only the bad users being punished. Six months later, when all the fuss has died down, the price goes up by, say, 0.5c/MB. That's not much is it? Half a penny? After all, they used to raise it by $2/month and customers only grumbled a bit before paying. So 0.5c isn't much, is it? ...and BTW, I'm not a p2p or torrent user but I do enjoy having bandwidth available when the latest Fedora or Ubuntu comes out. regards, Drew ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Doug wrote: At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote: On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote: We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. So your customers are only allowed to download public domain material? That kind of restricts the amount of information available on the Internet. Nitpick: just about everything, including this email, is copyrighted by somebody. Forbidding the download of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are generally not very sympathetic with your position). Oops! Didn't mean to start a fire here. I meant to say illegal copyrighted material. Also, if they are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see that. It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation for other users on that leg of our wireless network. The system supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent. We are working on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections. When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user. I don't think we have sent a customer to the shower even if they had several notices. Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Es tut mir leid für das Durcheinander meine Brüder! This is the classic logical fallacy that people seem to perpetuate when reporting news about P2P activity. ISPs oversubscribe. It's a common practice, and reasonably valid. But when you oversubscribe, you use a model based on 'projected' use of the available circuits and bandwidth. If you have a user who pays for a circuit that you've advertised as an X Mb line, and he uses X Mb ALL the time, he's using what he's paying for. If you then proceed to tell him that he can't do that, you're either wrong or you're not being up front enough with your pricing and marketing materials. You can't then proceed to blame the customer for use you did not anticipate. Imagine a farmer who sells tomatoes. He's promised you a bushel, but he gets a harvest of only so many. You walk up to the counter just after he's sold all of his tomatoes to someone and he tells you Sorry. There are no more tomatoes because that customer before you just 'stole' them all from you. He's abusing his privileges by buying up my whole crop. Now whose fault is it that you don't get the tomatoes you want? Is it the customer's fault for buying all the tomatoes the farmer sold him? Or is it the farmer's fault for selling them? The same works with the ISP vs P2P argument. If the ISPs were up-front about saying that they do not intend for you to actually USE the bandwidth you think you're paying for, I would say they had a leg upon which to stand. However, hiding this information from the customer and then blaming the customer when he does what he believes is well within his rights... it may play well in the media, but it's bad for the whole system and is incredibly divisive. N. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
On December 1, 2008 07:21:33 pm Doug wrote: Hmmm. When our users are pounding the network with BitTorrent traffic, we just shut them down and wait for them to complain. It's against our Acceptable Use Policy, and causes all sorts of VOIP headaches. As someone who is the technical lead for several ISPs, it is my professional opinion that you haven't a clue how to run such a thing. Torrent does not interfere with VOIP on a well-designed network any more than FTP or web browsing. Honestly, hire a competent admin to set up and run your infrastructure. If torrent's killing VOIP, that means that adding more VOIP will also kill it. Or excessive web browsing. Thank God I'm not one of your customers. -A. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to find ways of punishing them. /Benny ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to find ways of punishing them. What happens if everyone who owns a car drives it at the same time? Owns a telephone and uses it at the same time? ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
At 07:00 12/2/2008, SIP wrote: Doug wrote: At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote: On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote: We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. So your customers are only allowed to download public domain material? That kind of restricts the amount of information available on the Internet. Nitpick: just about everything, including this email, is copyrighted by somebody. Forbidding the download of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are generally not very sympathetic with your position). Oops! Didn't mean to start a fire here. I meant to say illegal copyrighted material. Also, if they are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see that. It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation for other users on that leg of our wireless network. The system supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent. We are working on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections. When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user. I don't think we have sent a customer to the shower even if they had several notices. Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Es tut mir leid für das Durcheinander meine Brüder! This is the classic logical fallacy that people seem to perpetuate when reporting news about P2P activity. ISPs oversubscribe. It's a common practice, and reasonably valid. But when you oversubscribe, you use a model based on 'projected' use of the available circuits and bandwidth. If you have a user who pays for a circuit that you've advertised as an X Mb line, and he uses X Mb ALL the time, he's using what he's paying for. If you then proceed to tell him that he can't do that, you're either wrong or you're not being up front enough with your pricing and marketing materials. You can't then proceed to blame the customer for use you did not anticipate. Imagine a farmer who sells tomatoes. He's promised you a bushel, but he gets a harvest of only so many. You walk up to the counter just after he's sold all of his tomatoes to someone and he tells you Sorry. There are no more tomatoes because that customer before you just 'stole' them all from you. He's abusing his privileges by buying up my whole crop. Now whose fault is it that you don't get the tomatoes you want? Is it the customer's fault for buying all the tomatoes the farmer sold him? Or is it the farmer's fault for selling them? The same works with the ISP vs P2P argument. If the ISPs were up-front about saying that they do not intend for you to actually USE the bandwidth you think you're paying for, I would say they had a leg upon which to stand. However, hiding this information from the customer and then blaming the customer when he does what he believes is well within his rights... it may play well in the media, but it's bad for the whole system and is incredibly divisive. Yep. In our contract we say things like shared, best efforts, etc. If you want a dedicated pipe with guaranteed bandwidth, you gotta pay a hefty price. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Doug wrote: At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to find ways of punishing them. What happens if everyone who owns a car drives it at the same time? Owns a telephone and uses it at the same time? ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users If everyone who owns a car drives it at the same time, there's lots of traffic. You know who gets blamed? The right people -- the people to create the infrastructure. Drivers aren't blamed for driving their cars when they want to as long as they do it legally as prescribed by the very open and easy to find laws. If everyone who owns a telephone uses it at the same time, it's just like the Internet issues. Telephone companies also practice oversubscription. But it's clear to everyone that it's the phone company that doesn't have the capacity for it... people don't blame the customers for using their phone. They pay for it. They should be able to use it when they want. But if everyone uses the Internet access they pay for? Suddenly, they're violating a user agreement (usually not a specified one in the case of many ISPs) or a usage policy and it's all that crazy P2P to blame. They're stealing bandwidth from other users. Which is absolute poppycock. That's a marketing spin on poor infrastructure planning. N. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
At 07:57 12/2/2008, Andrew Kohlsmith (lists) wrote: On December 1, 2008 07:21:33 pm Doug wrote: Hmmm. When our users are pounding the network with BitTorrent traffic, we just shut them down and wait for them to complain. It's against our Acceptable Use Policy, and causes all sorts of VOIP headaches. As someone who is the technical lead for several ISPs, it is my professional opinion that you haven't a clue how to run such a thing. Torrent does not interfere with VOIP on a well-designed network any more than FTP or web browsing. Honestly, hire a competent admin to set up and run your infrastructure. If we could find one. We had to completely abandon our initial supplier of wireless point-to-point gear. We are still ramping up with the new vendor. Lots of problems. We keep asking questions--sometimes we get satisfactory answers. This is what life is like on cutting edge of tecnology. If torrent's killing VOIP, that means that adding more VOIP will also kill it. Or excessive web browsing. Thank God I'm not one of your customers. -A. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Doug wrote: At 07:00 12/2/2008, SIP wrote: Doug wrote: At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote: On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote: We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. So your customers are only allowed to download public domain material? That kind of restricts the amount of information available on the Internet. Nitpick: just about everything, including this email, is copyrighted by somebody. Forbidding the download of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are generally not very sympathetic with your position). Oops! Didn't mean to start a fire here. I meant to say illegal copyrighted material. Also, if they are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see that. It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation for other users on that leg of our wireless network. The system supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent. We are working on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections. When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user. I don't think we have sent a customer to the shower even if they had several notices. Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Es tut mir leid für das Durcheinander meine Brüder! This is the classic logical fallacy that people seem to perpetuate when reporting news about P2P activity. ISPs oversubscribe. It's a common practice, and reasonably valid. But when you oversubscribe, you use a model based on 'projected' use of the available circuits and bandwidth. If you have a user who pays for a circuit that you've advertised as an X Mb line, and he uses X Mb ALL the time, he's using what he's paying for. If you then proceed to tell him that he can't do that, you're either wrong or you're not being up front enough with your pricing and marketing materials. You can't then proceed to blame the customer for use you did not anticipate. Imagine a farmer who sells tomatoes. He's promised you a bushel, but he gets a harvest of only so many. You walk up to the counter just after he's sold all of his tomatoes to someone and he tells you Sorry. There are no more tomatoes because that customer before you just 'stole' them all from you. He's abusing his privileges by buying up my whole crop. Now whose fault is it that you don't get the tomatoes you want? Is it the customer's fault for buying all the tomatoes the farmer sold him? Or is it the farmer's fault for selling them? The same works with the ISP vs P2P argument. If the ISPs were up-front about saying that they do not intend for you to actually USE the bandwidth you think you're paying for, I would say they had a leg upon which to stand. However, hiding this information from the customer and then blaming the customer when he does what he believes is well within his rights... it may play well in the media, but it's bad for the whole system and is incredibly divisive. Yep. In our contract we say things like shared, best efforts, etc. If you want a dedicated pipe with guaranteed bandwidth, you gotta pay a hefty price. Then I applaud you for doing something most ISPs do not do -- being a LITTLE more up-front about the realistic limitations of the service. ISPs tend to promise the world to grab users, knowing full well they can't deliver. And when the users try and use what they've been promised, they're blamed for bringing down the network. And what's worse, this clear spin line is propagated throughout even LARGE media organisations as an accepted fact. P2P Steals Bandwidth. That's reported as a simple and plain fact when, in reality, you can't steal what you've been allotted by your ISP. If the ISP said we only have the capacity for X users to use their service ALL the time, so users who want to pay basic usage and use little can pay this small sum, or users who want to get unlimited but very throttled and pay this larger sum, it would go a long way toward fostering trust all-round without relying on misinformation and vilifying the users who are using what they think they're paying for. Of course, it would be a marketing nightmare, as the other ISPs would say, But we have UNLIMITED access at much higher speeds -- clearly lying about their capacities for the sake of bamboozling non-tech-savvy customers, and then relying on media organisations to propagate their disingenuous epithets against the P2P crowd. N.
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
At 12:44 PM 12/2/2008, you wrote: At 04:03 12/2/2008, Benny Amorsen wrote: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Yes, just like the airlines need to somehow control those users who keep showing up to the flight they booked, every single time! It's impossible to do overbooking with customers like that, so we need to find ways of punishing them. What happens if everyone who owns a car drives it at the same time? Owns a telephone and uses it at the same time? As far as I remember the very first service to offer flat rate was BIX. They very carefully figured out what it would cost to insure a fair profit, and it was a big hit till a few people figured out that they could use private chats as a network pipe and stay on 24/7 using some mysterious protocol. In the end, that was some of what killed the service and there was nothing to be done about it. For most of us, well for me anyway, I like the fat pipe I have for the 1% of the time I use it and I expect that as a residential user Time Warner sell me that pipe expecting me to use it about that much, maybe a bit more if I had teenage kids. I'm sure in the fine print it says I can't host a web server though I'd guess they'd not complain if it didn't get much traffic. I've considered a T1 so I'd be guaranteed the throughput so my phones would always work, but that costs 10 times as much and has less promised speed than my cable modem. So personally I consider that if I was to try and use my current internet connection to host a torrent site and it tried to use 100% of the promised capacity all the time that I'd get cut off. The same as most of the unlimited phone service says in fine print up to 2000 minutes/month or some such limit. If I could get the same plan for my internet as I get for my phones, a few dollars a month plus a bit per minute(megabyte), I'd be all over it, but even better, then the provider wouldn't have to care as they'd be making a fair profit no matter what the user did. Ira ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/richard_bennett_utorrent_udp/ FUD? Interesting? Boring? New news? Old news? -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Sounds possible, but as a user of uTorrent, I have yet to see this feature It may simply be that I havnt looked hard enough. I can say, that I still have to have a tcp port routed for uTorrent to work properly. I may post an update, If I notice a change in this behavour. --Christopher Dobbs On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Alex Balashov [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/richard_bennett_utorrent_udp/ FUD? Interesting? Boring? New news? Old news? -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- find / -name *base* -user your -print | xargs 'chown us' ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
At 12:34 12/1/2008, Alex Balashov wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/01/richard_bennett_utorrent_udp/ FUD? Interesting? Boring? New news? Old news? Hmmm. When our users are pounding the network with BitTorrent traffic, we just shut them down and wait for them to complain. It's against our Acceptable Use Policy, and causes all sorts of VOIP headaches. Why the BitTorrent guys want to give themselves even a worse reputation is beyond me. We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. But for other, legal BitTorrent transfers, we suggest that they use the scheduling feature of uTorrent to avoid high-traffic transfers during the day. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Doug wrote: Why the BitTorrent guys want to give themselves even a worse reputation is beyond me. We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. But for other, legal BitTorrent transfers, we suggest that they use the scheduling feature of uTorrent to avoid high-traffic transfers during the day. Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Give me the lash! We love the lash! I'd give you the finger if you told me as an ISP that I can't download CentOS 5 on DVD whenever I wanted, or to watch a Netflix movie I paid for. How you remain in business acting like a jack booted thug is beyond me. -Ron ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
RE Kushner List Account wrote: Doug wrote: Why the BitTorrent guys want to give themselves even a worse reputation is beyond me. We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. But for other, legal BitTorrent transfers, we suggest that they use the scheduling feature of uTorrent to avoid high-traffic transfers during the day. Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Give me the lash! We love the lash! I'd give you the finger if you told me as an ISP that I can't download CentOS 5 on DVD whenever I wanted, or to watch a Netflix movie I paid for. How you remain in business acting like a jack booted thug is beyond me. Mein overenthusiastic Oberreichskommendant, That doesn't seem like an entirely fair assessment of Doug's stated policy. :-) You are also hereby reaffirming Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law Mit nationalsozialistischen Grüß, -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Alex Balashov wrote: RE Kushner List Account wrote: Doug wrote: Why the BitTorrent guys want to give themselves even a worse reputation is beyond me. We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. But for other, legal BitTorrent transfers, we suggest that they use the scheduling feature of uTorrent to avoid high-traffic transfers during the day. Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Give me the lash! We love the lash! I'd give you the finger if you told me as an ISP that I can't download CentOS 5 on DVD whenever I wanted, or to watch a Netflix movie I paid for. How you remain in business acting like a jack booted thug is beyond me. Mein overenthusiastic Oberreichskommendant, That doesn't seem like an entirely fair assessment of Doug's stated policy. :-) The question is, what are you actually paying for as a customer? To discriminate against bits just because they actually use what they are paying for is beyond me. At least a bandwidth cap is easier to understand. You get what you pay for. -Ron ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Awesome, I always wanted to see this law in real life. Thank You!! Alex Balashov wrote: RE Kushner List Account wrote: Doug wrote: Why the BitTorrent guys want to give themselves even a worse reputation is beyond me. We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. But for other, legal BitTorrent transfers, we suggest that they use the scheduling feature of uTorrent to avoid high-traffic transfers during the day. Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Sieg heil! Give me the lash! We love the lash! I'd give you the finger if you told me as an ISP that I can't download CentOS 5 on DVD whenever I wanted, or to watch a Netflix movie I paid for. How you remain in business acting like a jack booted thug is beyond me. Mein overenthusiastic Oberreichskommendant, That doesn't seem like an entirely fair assessment of Doug's stated policy. :-) You are also hereby reaffirming Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law Mit nationalsozialistischen Grüß, -- Alex -- Igor Widlinski Systems Administrator Eigen Development Ltd. #300 - 1807 West 10th Avenue Vancouver BC, V6J 2A9 t. 604.736.1066 f. 604.736.5669 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] * ATTENTION The information in this e-mail and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without our authority. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. * ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote: We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. So your customers are only allowed to download public domain material? That kind of restricts the amount of information available on the Internet. Nitpick: just about everything, including this email, is copyrighted by somebody. Forbidding the download of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are generally not very sympathetic with your position). -- Tilghman ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Igor Widlinski wrote: Awesome, I always wanted to see this law in real life. Technically I didn't call him THAT guy. I was thinking of that recently elected Chicago street thug who speaks before large crowds at night. Just spend ten seconds on YouTube and you'll see it's not my original thought. If your ISP lets you that is. -Ron ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
RE Kushner List Account wrote: The question is, what are you actually paying for as a customer? To discriminate against bits just because they actually use what they are paying for is beyond me. At least a bandwidth cap is easier to understand. You get what you pay for. Speaking as a former sysadmin of an ISP, I would say that the issue is the following: 1) There is a high correlation of network-disrupting levels of traffic and BitTorrent; 2) Unlike some bursty downloads (like your CentOS ISO from an FTP server), BitTorrent traffic has the tendency to be sustained at higher levels for longer periods since the architecture presumes that everyone's a client and everyone's a server and fragments are always moving around. This is what tends to upset oversubscription assumptions that are otherwise functional, and are the only way that the ISP can possibly afford to give you the bandwidth for the price of consumer-grade broadband. I would tend to agree with you that discriminating against types of services and/or traffic through rate-limiting buckets and deep packet inspection is worse than a blanket bandwidth cap. However, you need to keep in mind the other side of the coin; were it not for Torrent, there would not be a need for traffic policing (in the overwhelming preponderance of cases) either way, so it's considered unfair to punish everyone with a bandwidth cap on everything when in reality, it's not a problem if their applications *occasionally* burst to very high levels of throughput. This is different from using up a lot of bandwidth continuously. My ISP doesn't care if I chug down a CentOS ISO tonight at close to my DSL line rate. But if I downloaded them all day long, all day, every day, there would be a problem, but the way to solve that problem isn't by taking away others' freedom to download a CentOS ISO when they feel like it in principle. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
Alex Balashov wrote: RE Kushner List Account wrote: The question is, what are you actually paying for as a customer? To discriminate against bits just because they actually use what they are paying for is beyond me. At least a bandwidth cap is easier to understand. You get what you pay for. Speaking as a former sysadmin of an ISP, I would say that the issue is the following: 1) There is a high correlation of network-disrupting levels of traffic and BitTorrent; 2) Unlike some bursty downloads (like your CentOS ISO from an FTP server), BitTorrent traffic has the tendency to be sustained at higher levels for longer periods since the architecture presumes that everyone's a client and everyone's a server and fragments are always moving around. This is what tends to upset oversubscription assumptions that are otherwise functional, and are the only way that the ISP can possibly afford to give you the bandwidth for the price of consumer-grade broadband. I would tend to agree with you that discriminating against types of services and/or traffic through rate-limiting buckets and deep packet inspection is worse than a blanket bandwidth cap. However, you need to keep in mind the other side of the coin; were it not for Torrent, there would not be a need for traffic policing (in the overwhelming preponderance of cases) either way, so it's considered unfair to punish everyone with a bandwidth cap on everything when in reality, it's not a problem if their applications *occasionally* burst to very high levels of throughput. This is different from using up a lot of bandwidth continuously. My ISP doesn't care if I chug down a CentOS ISO tonight at close to my DSL line rate. But if I downloaded them all day long, all day, every day, there would be a problem, but the way to solve that problem isn't by taking away others' freedom to download a CentOS ISO when they feel like it in principle. Have you checked the FTP and/or HTTP mirrors lately for the DVD iso of CentOS? The only place I've been able to find them is on the Torrents themselves. -- Bird's The Word Technologies, Inc. http://www.btwtech.com/ ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
BJ Weschke wrote: Alex Balashov wrote: RE Kushner List Account wrote: The question is, what are you actually paying for as a customer? To discriminate against bits just because they actually use what they are paying for is beyond me. At least a bandwidth cap is easier to understand. You get what you pay for. Speaking as a former sysadmin of an ISP, I would say that the issue is the following: 1) There is a high correlation of network-disrupting levels of traffic and BitTorrent; 2) Unlike some bursty downloads (like your CentOS ISO from an FTP server), BitTorrent traffic has the tendency to be sustained at higher levels for longer periods since the architecture presumes that everyone's a client and everyone's a server and fragments are always moving around. This is what tends to upset oversubscription assumptions that are otherwise functional, and are the only way that the ISP can possibly afford to give you the bandwidth for the price of consumer-grade broadband. I would tend to agree with you that discriminating against types of services and/or traffic through rate-limiting buckets and deep packet inspection is worse than a blanket bandwidth cap. However, you need to keep in mind the other side of the coin; were it not for Torrent, there would not be a need for traffic policing (in the overwhelming preponderance of cases) either way, so it's considered unfair to punish everyone with a bandwidth cap on everything when in reality, it's not a problem if their applications *occasionally* burst to very high levels of throughput. This is different from using up a lot of bandwidth continuously. My ISP doesn't care if I chug down a CentOS ISO tonight at close to my DSL line rate. But if I downloaded them all day long, all day, every day, there would be a problem, but the way to solve that problem isn't by taking away others' freedom to download a CentOS ISO when they feel like it in principle. Have you checked the FTP and/or HTTP mirrors lately for the DVD iso of CentOS? The only place I've been able to find them is on the Torrents themselves. OK, so maybe that's a bad example. Shows how much I know - I'm a Debian guy. :) But it doesn't really undermine my point. -- Alex Balashov Evariste Systems Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel: (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599 ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: What do you guys think of this?
At 18:56 12/1/2008, Tilghman Lesher wrote: On Monday 01 December 2008 06:21:33 pm Doug wrote: We tell our customers that they are not allowed to download copyrighted material. So your customers are only allowed to download public domain material? That kind of restricts the amount of information available on the Internet. Nitpick: just about everything, including this email, is copyrighted by somebody. Forbidding the download of copyrighted works is not only a draconian policy, but may actually violate several copyright laws (you're interfering with a copyright owner's right to distribute his/her/their works, and courts are generally not very sympathetic with your position). Oops! Didn't mean to start a fire here. I meant to say illegal copyrighted material. Also, if they are using up hundreds of Internet connections, we can see that. It essentially causes a Denial of Service situation for other users on that leg of our wireless network. The system supposedly has rate limiting, but seems to get overloaded when someone goes completely nuts with BitTorrent. We are working on ways to limit the number of simultaneous connections. When we get a copyright infringment notice from our upstream provider, we are compelled to reprimand the user. I don't think we have sent a customer to the shower even if they had several notices. Net Neutrality is great in principle. But ISP's need to somehow control those few percentage of users who suck down a huge majority of the bandwidth. It's dollars and cents. Es tut mir leid für das Durcheinander meine Brüder! ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
