Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on June 19, 2006, 03:21:07 PM
-
What are net subscriber contention ratio's like in the US? I have a 'discussion' going on elsewhere, NZ has some pretty bad stuff at the moment (150-180:1). Someones trying to tell me the US has no contentionm nor do people bother with traffic shaping.
-
Well, it is up to the ISP for all the above you are asking for. And they all lie about the bandwidth to user ratios, so we cannot get a good feel for the contention.
Some ISP's use traffic shaping, others do not.
The whole implemetation here is pretty chaotic. Most do not have firewalls on thier networks. Some that do, have it wide open to thier clients connection. Some block UDP, flat out. Some block ICMP (yes, the entire message list). Some block ECHO's only.
Quite frankly, it is a wonder it works at all. Every ISP has its own set of rules and configuration they run.
-
cheers, got some leftwing nutjobs screaming bloody murder over the fact that isp's/telco's are trying to put the brakes on that net neutrality law.
-
Huh?
You're against net neutrality?
Hmm... and I thought it was only the 60 year-old politicians who have to ask their kids how to work their AOL email... or the telcos themselves who are against it.
What am I missing?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Huh?
You're against net neutrality?
Hmm... and I thought it was only the 60 year-old politicians who have to ask their kids how to work their AOL email... or the telcos themselves who are against it.
What am I missing?
Errmmm... to much for me to explain.
But yes I am against it. Basically it is a law trying to govern how private companies use privately owned equipment. Kinda flies in the face of your other laws doesn't it.
-
Would that equipment be used for interstate communication? I may be missing something but by private companies, are you referring to the ones that provide the wire and capacity for communications, data and voice? Just confused a bit here.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Errmmm... to much for me to explain.
But yes I am against it. Basically it is a law trying to govern how private companies use privately owned equipment. Kinda flies in the face of your other laws doesn't it.
Too much for you to explain?
I think the changing of the Internet as we know it - the unhindered free flow of communication - warrants a little bit of discussion.
Who knows? Your Telco might suddenly deem it neccessary to block you from HTC, as a result of its signing a deal with Microsoft and its flight sim.
No?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Too much for you to explain?
I think the changing of the Internet as we know it - the unhindered free flow of communication - warrants a little bit of discussion.
Who knows? Your Telco might suddenly deem it neccessary to block you from HTC, as a result of its signing a deal with Microsoft and its flight sim.
No?
Whats changing exactly Nash? Care to explain?
:noid
-
The internet is broken.
We need a new one.
-
I'm pretty sure I have a spare one in my garage that I'll sell ya cheap. :D
-
Originally posted by Goomba
I'm pretty sure I have a spare one in my garage that I'll sell ya cheap. :D
You stole it from AL Gore didn't you.
Bronk
-
Found one in his pocket when I mugged 'im in DC, while I was on vacation.
I was really lookin' for Viagra, but, you takes your chances...
(PS..sorry for contributing to the hijack. But Nilsen started it! :p )
-
Originally posted by Goomba
Found one in his pocket when I mugged 'im in DC, while I was on vacation.
I was really lookin' for Viagra, but, you takes your chances...
(PS..sorry for contributing to the hijack. But Nilsen started it! :p )
Should a mugged Bob Dole then...sheesh what were you thinking man.
using this excuse also
(PS..sorry for contributing to the hijack. But Nilsen started it! :p )
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Whats changing exactly Nash? Care to explain?
:noid
Well, nothing is changing, because the telcos don't currently have the power to do what they're trying to do.
What will change can probably best be answered by asking why it is that the telcos want to have control over the content of the internet in the first place.
Why do they want it?
And, with it, could they not do what I gave as an example? Could they not charge more for certain content? Could they not sign an exclusive deal with a content provider (in this case, Microsoft) and block access to its competitors (in this case HTC)?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well, nothing is changing, because the telcos don't currently have the power to do what they're trying to do.
What will change can probably best be answered by asking why it is that the telcos want to have control over the content of the internet in the first place.
Why do they want it?
And, with it, could they not do what I gave as an example? Could they not charge more for certain content? Could they not sign an exclusive deal with a content provider (in this case, Microsoft) and block access to its competitors (in this case HTC)?
Actually Nash its more of a technology thing. Telco's want the ability to peer ToS between themselves, and this blocks it while pretending to be some net neutrality bill. The whole blocking content thing could happen now, coulda happened last year, or even 5 years ago.
Its just commie :noid
When did the US Govt ever pass a sane well thought out law regarding the net?