I tend not to believe this kind of thing, considering it fear mongering...
is this legit?
On Jan 29, 2009 3:54 PM, "Stephen P Rufle" wrote:
There was an interesting article in Wired about Comcast seems they had
to learn how to be an ISP instead of a dumb pipe Cable TV provider
http://www.wired.
There was an interesting article in Wired about Comcast seems they had
to learn how to be an ISP instead of a dumb pipe Cable TV provider
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-02/mf_brianroberts
We as a group are VERY vocal minority. Most people would not even know
or even be effected b
n...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of
kitepi...@kitepilot.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:45 AM
To: stephen.p.ru...@cox.net; Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: [Article] Cox ready to throttle P2P, non"time sensitive"
traffic
I think that this is being taken out of context.
For better or worse, I'm usually pushing in excess of 50GB of traffic
(combined up and down) a week on average. I can safely say that BT is
not being "throttled" by Cox. Maybe on the default ports. could be
handy when they roll out the new shaping policy.
-Joe
Sharkscott wrote:
Check
lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of
kitepi...@kitepilot.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:45 AM
To: stephen.p.ru...@cox.net; Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: [Article] Cox ready to throttle P2P, non"time sensitive"
traffic
I think that this is being taken out of context...
I manage
I only use Cox for the net, and I have to say,
coming from the Chicago area and dealing with Comcast, Cox is
exponentially better. It's great being able to use bittorrent again and
actually download things over HTTP at speeds worth paying $50-60/mo
for. You guys bitch a lot about Cox, and I can
stephen.p.ru...@cox.net; Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: [Article] Cox ready to throttle P2P, non"time sensitive"
traffic
I think that this is being taken out of context...
I manage a small wireless network with around a hundred victims...
er...
CUSTOMERS!:)
Being a wi
et/exams/
--- On Thu, 1/29/09, Eric Shubert wrote:
> From: Eric Shubert
> Subject: Re: [Article] Cox ready to throttle P2P, non "time sensitive" traffic
> To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 7:34 AM
> I think the problem Cox
If my info is right, your right. ;-) For cox it only goes down to the node,
half a street or a whole or half a apartment complexes..I think..
Scott
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
> I think the problem Cox is trying to address is inherent in their
> technology, namely that
I think the problem Cox is trying to address is inherent in their
technology, namely that customers share bandwidth. DSL doesn't have this
issue (DSL has finer grained control). That's my understanding at any rate.
Sharkscott wrote:
> I agree Shawn, I like your idea, I don't download THAT much,
Check out what I just found..
http://lifehacker.com/5141758/measurement-lab-checks-if-your-connection-is-being-throttled
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:48 AM, kitepi...@kitepilot.com <
kitepi...@kitepilot.com> wrote:
> >> why should my downloads from a P2P network...
> Apologies, I think I didn't mak
>> why should my downloads from a P2P network...
Apologies, I think I didn't make this clear.
My customer can (and do) download whatever they want to, what I stop is Joe
Annon downloading P2P stuff FROM my customer's puter.
>> rate limit your customers to their contracted rate and
>> minimize ov
I agree Shawn, I like your idea, I don't download THAT much, but why 'pay'
for when its someone else watching a thousand videos at once that is causing
the network slowdown..
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
> Nicely said. I agree.
>
> kitepi...@kitepilot.com wrote:
> > I thi
Nicely said. I agree.
kitepi...@kitepilot.com wrote:
> I think that this is being taken out of context...
> I manage a small wireless network with around a hundred victims...
> er...
> CUSTOMERS!:)
>
> Being a wireless network, we face challenges that wired networks don care
> about, and wh
I normally stay out of these, but I just want to ask why you don't rate
limit your customers to their contracted rate and minimize over selling your
bandwidth? I would that would prevent "joe the hacker" from bringing down
other customers in the first place. I don't have issues with stuff like VoIP
I think that this is being taken out of context...
I manage a small wireless network with around a hundred victims...
er...
CUSTOMERS!:)
Being a wireless network, we face challenges that wired networks don care
about, and when the traffic spikes, we have to "manage".
Let me state in here t
Sharkscott wrote:
> Its all about control, always has been. Its not like they can't, or
> don't already. They decide when they want too, and what they will throttle.
>
> Control..that's all.
>
It is *their* network. I hate depending on them, though. I have very few
good things to say about Cox
Its all about control, always has been. Its not like they can't, or don't
already. They decide when they want too, and what they will throttle.
Control..that's all.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Tuna wrote:
> Anthony Boynes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Stephen P Rufle
> > wro
Anthony Boynes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Stephen P Rufle
> wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up-throttle-for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-traffic.ars
>> ---
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 14:06 -0700, Stephen P Rufle wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up-throttle-for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-traffic.ars
Google Fans Net Neutrality Flames with Web Measurement Lab...
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Web-Services-Web-20-and-SOA/Google-Fa
Anthony Boynes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Stephen P Rufle
wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up-throttle-for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-traffic.ars
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.p
If I'm reading this correctly, youtube videos get priority over
Operating System software updates and Linux torrent distribution?
That's kinda interesting...I don't see "viral traffic" on the list of
"low priority".
Of course, this is the corporate ideas. I can tell you that I will sell
you a 2M
however now that i reread it it makes sense.. during peak congested
times... should be interesting.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Stephen wrote:
> i think overall its bs... because it now will bend over legit users and
> useages
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Anthony Boynes wrote:
>>
i think overall its bs... because it now will bend over legit users and useages
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Anthony Boynes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Stephen P Rufle
> wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up-throttle-for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Stephen P Rufle
wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up-throttle-for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-traffic.ars
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subs
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up-throttle-for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-traffic.ars
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists
26 matches
Mail list logo
