how-to block ads
|
the_mule
join:2002-12-28
| reply to GeekNJ
Re: Catchy topic? Hows this 'pathping got me capp
Yes, let’s pretend GeekNJ that Cablevision has the capacity it needs and is not currently working on 16QAM under DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 which would allow for greater upload bandwidth that is currently available under QPSK. Now, since even Cablevision recognizes the need for more upstream bandwidth one can only assume that they will provision more upstream bandwidth from their providers as needed, else and as you point out moving to 16QAM (greater upload capacity at the CMTS) won’t mean more bandwidth where it connects to the Internet.
And the answer to just how much backend Internet access Cablevision would need depend on how much contention those 1000 customers represent on the two T3 lines and just how much contention Cablevision is willing to put onto the network. Now of course there is a correlation between bandwidth and networking costs and I for one would like to know just what kind of contention Cablevision is placing on their network but I don’t think they would be very forthcoming with that information. But then I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to say to say that contention is always on the increase either, especially as the once very asymmetric traffic patterns of customers continue to approach a more symmetric one and along with oversubscribing will in all likelihood even outpace what relief adding channels and splitting nodes can provide—and this is precisely were DOCSIS 2.0 comes in.
So how does Cablevision mitigate the substantial cost that DOCSIS would entail? One way would be by helping them keep current customers by maintaining service levels, or attracting new customers with greater service levels, seeking profits on new services offered, and increasing the percentage of homes that can be reached, all of which are touted reasons for the development of DOCSIS 2.0. Now of course, Cablevision can just always implement ridiculous punitive capping policies, especially given the fact for a lot of communities Cablevision is the only cable broadband available as Lex Luthor has pointed out.
Also, my Tappan Zee Bridge analogy had more to do with asking the question; how might a cable provider deal with a changing pattern in traffic (moving from asymmetric to more symmetric) that which is unlike how the lanes are merely shifted on the bridge—and I thought the addition of extra lanes was obvious enough.
Yes The WiseGuy, I’m already well aware of your argument against Cablevision’s implementation of DOCSIS 2.0 based on just how much profit is in it for them and your now arguing preferred vendors has been duly noted. I will reconcile this with the fact that profits for the industry as a whole has continued to grow while spending one-sixth the money on capital expenditures that it has spent on mergers and acquisitions over the past few years, even as the value of the service continues to slide.
So you now lament how impossible it is to understand why I would expect Cablevision to upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 for a small number of users who send large amounts of data at 1mbps on a sustained basis. For one, I expect Cablevision will eventually upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 just as you do but I would desire that it be sooner than later, just as I wanted my broadband and digital television sooner than later. But then I have only argued that DOCSIS 2.0 is but one alternative to the topic of this thread, which is Cablevision’s capping policy. And of course, when you are not busying arguing against DOCSIS 2.0 as a viable alternative, you are ready and willing to argue just how good that capping policy is. So what I find equally implausible is your insistence that this capping policy has only been undertaken because of those few users sending large amounts of data. It ignores the fact that the capping policy coincided with the rollout of services which themselves placed additional traffic on the network and then again illogically ignores just how this policy is being implemented. Instead, you insist on repeating capping myth to the point of mantra: Capping is only imposed on the top bandwidth users and don’t upload for hours on end and you won’t get capped. Yet when you are yourself presented with evidence contrary to this, you say that you’ve never claimed that capping was perfect, but that its goal is correct. At least you didn’t end this latest post with yet another call that if I don’t like then I can get the hell out so I suppose we are making some progress.
On the other hand, such zealotry displayed by some of you in defense of your Internet Service Provider—its as if the citizens of Rome were praising Caesar and his policies that has their Legions dispatched on the frontier while barbarians sack Rome and it burns around them. Of course, you probably would just consider the barbarians those same hardcore network abuses but then they were slain awhile ago so all you’re really doing now is throwing your fellow citizens to the lions in the Coliseum. Is Cablevision burning? No, but its Pax Romana era is behind us. | |
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
Yonkers, NY
| said by the_mule  :
So you now lament how impossible it is to understand why I would expect Cablevision to upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 for a small number of users who send large amounts of data at 1mbps on a sustained basis. For one, I expect Cablevision will eventually upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 just as you do but I would desire that it be sooner than later, just as I wanted my broadband and digital television sooner than later. But then I have only argued that DOCSIS 2.0 is but one alternative to the topic of this thread, which is Cablevision’s capping policy.
It is not a viable alternative at the present time and according to the Yankee Consulting group it makes more sense for the MSOs to move to Docsis 1.1 then 2.0.
quote:
Yankee Consulting Group]MSO Recommendations
* MSOs must concentrate on deploying DOCSIS 1.1-based services instead of focusing solely on the technical implementations of DOCSIS 2.0. Cable operators should deploy DOCSIS 1.1-enabled services such as guaranteed bit rate and tiered services. These services do not require a complex infrastructure such as VoIP and home networking, and can increase ARPU.
You certainly have the right to argue that OOL should move to docsis 2.0 as fast as possible but no company makes major upgrades without economic justification simply because their subscribers argue they should have a better service. Simply not capping people for using the service in a way it was not designed won't fly as a reason to spend 10s to 100's of millions of dollars. Unless that company is losing subscribers, or can add services they will not simply upgrade. In fact in the Yankee group report they say quote:
Terayon must help cable operators determine the cost savings and revenue opportunity associated with deploying DOCSIS 2.0-based equipment. As the only vendor with a DOCSIS 2.0-certified cable modem and CMTS, Terayon must aggressively move on this opportunity.
As you can see they acknowledge that there must be economic justification to move to docsis 2.0
»www.yankeegroup.com/public/produ···?ID=9540
quote:
And of course, when you are not busying arguing against DOCSIS 2.0 as a viable alternative, you are ready and willing to argue just how good that capping policy is. So what I find equally implausible is your insistence that this capping policy has only been undertaken because of those few users sending large amounts of data. It ignores the fact that the capping policy coincided with the rollout of services which themselves placed additional traffic on the network and then again illogically ignores just how this policy is being implemented.
That is an extraordinary claim. Please explain exactly what services were rolled out and give the exact dates they were rolled out in each area and exactly how much Bandwidth they use.
quote:
Instead, you insist on repeating capping myth to the point of mantra: Capping is only imposed on the top bandwidth users and don’t upload for hours on end and you won’t get capped. Yet when you are yourself presented with evidence contrary to this, you say that you’ve never claimed that capping was perfect, but that its goal is correct.
There are an lot of users who have posted in this forum and know how to check if they have been capped. Yes I have seen a couple of people claim they were capped for nothing. One of them it turned out didn't even realize he had run a high Bandwidth server in Bittorrent, he thought he was just downloading. Certainly an honest mistake. Given the number of users here, if OOLs capping process was as ridiculous as you try and make it to be there would have been a lot more instances of capping. People here are regularly told to run ping tests, and people upload 40MB files, this is what Sedated has said he was capped for. If this were a normal part of the capping process the would be many complaints from members of this forum.
I guess your computer has never had a glitch.
quote:
At least you didn’t end this latest post with yet another call that if I don’t like then I can get the hell out so I suppose we are making some progress.
If you don't like the service that is offered by a company you shouldn't get it. The whole American system of capitalism is based on the idea that companies can offer the product they want and if you don't like the rules the company has for that service don't use the service.
quote:
On the other hand, such zealotry displayed by some of you in defense of your Internet Service Provider—its as if the citizens of Rome were praising Caesar and his policies that has their Legions dispatched on the frontier while barbarians sack Rome and it burns around them. Of course, you probably would just consider the barbarians those same hardcore network abuses but then they were slain awhile ago so all you’re really doing now is throwing your fellow citizens to the lions in the Coliseum. Is Cablevision burning? No, but its Pax Romana era is behind us.
ROTFL, your rhetoric is excellent, your logic flawed, but your ability to spout is unparalleled.
--
Dog and Butterfly | |
the_mule
join:2002-12-28
| Thank you TheWiseGuy for providing additional information regarding the business of DOCSIS 2.0. But then Yankee Consulting telling Terayon that if they want to sell DOCSIS 2.0 to the MSOs they must first convince them of all the money it will make them—and people pay these guys for such obvious advice? Again, I expect Cablevision will eventually upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 just as you do but I would desire that it be sooner than later, just as I wanted my broadband and digital television sooner than later. But then DOCSIS 2.0 was only raised as but one way to mitigate Cablevision’s ridiculous capping policy and yet you still ignore the fact that the policy itself is business driven, a policy that doesn’t tell people when their service has been punitively degraded.
said by TheWiseGuy :
quote the_mule:
And of course, when you are not busying arguing against DOCSIS 2.0 as a viable alternative, you are ready and willing to argue just how good that capping policy is. So what I find equally implausible is your insistence that this capping policy has only been undertaken because of those few users sending large amounts of data. It ignores the fact that the capping policy coincided with the rollout of services which themselves placed additional traffic on the network and then again illogically ignores just how this policy is being implemented.
That is an extraordinary claim. Please explain exactly what services were rolled out and give the exact dates they were rolled out in each area and exactly how much Bandwidth they use.
Optimum Voice or what is otherwise is known as VoIP, or as Cablevision describes it:
said by Cablevision:
Optimum Voice uses state-of-the-art digital technology, the same technology that delivers Optimum Online high-speed Internet access to your home, to deliver high quality crystal clear voice service. Optimum Voice is available exclusively to Optimum Online subscribers.
Somewhat ironic then, that even as Cablevision implements a punitive capping policy against uploading, they introduce a service which uses sustained uploading. I suppose then that sustained uploading is perfectly acceptable so long they can charge extra for it. It’s even more ironic then that we’ve been reminded here time after time that the network simply isn’t designed for sustained upload and even Cablelabs touts the next generation of DOCSIS 1.1/2.0 as the foundation for delivering these very services:
said by Cablelabs:
The new international standard is a key to unleashing the significant bandwidth available in cable systems, and is backward compatible with previous versions of the DOCSIS . Furthermore, as is true with the previous version of the specification (ITU-T Rec. J.112, also known as DOCSIS 1.1), the new standard can be used as the foundation upon which IPCablecom IP-communication/telephony services can be offered. The standardization is remarkable due to the fact that work on the specification began less than 18 months ago. The rapid standardization is important to promoting worldwide adoption of this important technology.
So no, I don’t think my previous statement that the capping policy coincided with the rollout of services which themselves placed additional traffic on the network is a claim at all (let along an extraordinary one) but merely a statement of fact; that infamous ‘Potential Security Brief’ came in December of 2002 and two months later in February Cablevision announces Optimum Voice. Now, make of that what you will, but I for one find Cablevision’s implementation of a punitive capping policy against sustained upload and then turning around and dumping a VoIP service on their DOCSIS 1.0 network somewhat ironic—OK, so P2P no, VoIP yes. At least Cablevision was kind enough to exclude their VoIP traffic from the capping mix:
said by Engineer88 :
OV shouldn't slow you down much. An active voice connection uses less than 100kb/s, and that is not deducted from your caps.
But then one has to wonder if other VoIP traffic, say from a 3rd party like Vonage is granted this cap immunity too? If not, then it would seem then that sustained upload is OK so long as Cablevision says it’s OK—so long as they can make a buck off it as both services introduce sustained upload to this shared network regardless of who just happens to be selling it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
said by TheWiseGuy :
quote the_mule:
Instead, you insist on repeating capping myth to the point of mantra: Capping is only imposed on the top bandwidth users and don’t upload for hours on end and you won’t get capped. Yet when you are yourself presented with evidence contrary to this, you say that you’ve never claimed that capping was perfect, but that its goal is correct.
There are an lot of users who have posted in this forum and know how to check if they have been capped. Yes I have seen a couple of people claim they were capped for nothing. One of them it turned out didn't even realize he had run a high Bandwidth server in Bittorrent, he thought he was just downloading. Certainly an honest mistake. Given the number of users here, if OOLs capping process was as ridiculous as you try and make it to be there would have been a lot more instances of capping. People here are regularly told to run ping tests, and people upload 40MB files, this is what Sedated has said he was capped for. If this were a normal part of the capping process the would be many complaints from members of this forum.
I’m sorry TheWiseGuy, beyond the stories posted here by fellow customers, do you have any knowledge about the capping policy or its algorithm used that the rest of us are not privy too? I ask, because I have already and at length used very simple logic to suppose what the consequences of this policy is based on the facts we do know, and only cited the antidotal stories (just one involving pinging) posted here in support of this. You along with others here on the other hand make the extraordinary claim that capping is only imposed on the few hardcore bandwidth abusers and that only heavy and sustained uploading will get you capped. Please, logic dictates that since this policy is already in place the only people who are being capped now are those who exceed some unpublished threshold. So I ask you, on what biases do you suppose that those being capped are hardcore network abuses—is it only because they are in fact capped? Sure, and my receiving one speeding ticket makes me a menace on the road. But unlike speeding tickets which only catch a fraction of speeders, this policy catches just about anyone anyone who speeds but once and instead of issuing them it a ticket, it throttles them and doesn’t even bother telling them. In the end, there is no telling how many people have been capped, including those who were never hardcore network abusers but only exceeded the limit once. Talk about flawed logic and rhetoric…
said by TheWiseGuy :
Simply not capping people for using the service in a way it was not designed won't fly as a reason to spend 10s to 100's of millions of dollars.
On the contrary, your using those hardcore network abusers an excuse for this ridiculous policy is what won’t fly. Again, my problem isn’t with Cablevision imposing a cap, its with their imposing a punitive cap for which they refuse to outline to their customer what most likely will get you capped and then again refuse to tell them when they are. Right, charging people for a service that you’ve since punitively degraded without telling them thus making it impossible for them to decide whether they should keep the service or not. No, that doesn’t sound at all like the American System of Capitalism that I know and love. | |
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
| Hypocrisy and Misdirection
the_mule wrote, "Somewhat ironic then, that even as Cablevision implements a punitive capping policy against uploading, they introduce a service which uses sustained uploading. I suppose then that sustained uploading is perfectly acceptable so long they can charge extra for it."
Yes!, as I pointed out this upload v. download controversy is a misdirection. This is about attempting to dictate the use of these wires. The pulic cannot allow OOL to dictate that the wires we have allowed to be strung across our backyards and through our streets be used primarily to serve the money making interests of one private company. A company given a free ride on our property to make money without competition, because for the most part only CableVision has been granted a franchise by our governments. Such franchisements require public control. They alway have, and always will, require the time and effort of public spirited watchdogs. This forum is only a small attempted public toe on Cablevisions/OOLs golfcourse. To our moderator's credit we are permitted to carefully beat around the bush. Attempted honest discussions like »Are OOL personal web pages allowed-instructions? , have been first removed and then locked, when open discussions of Optimum Voice and Personal Web Page can lead to a deeper understanding what these policies are really about.
I am for capitalism. I am for the profit system to allow creation of the best system. But when one company is essentially the only company allowed to string wires, that is an unfair advantage for that company, and an impediment for the developement of the Internet in a manner the public would otherwise chose to spend their hard earned dollars on. People want Personal Web Pages. People want low cost telephony. People want to create and share music, videos, and ideas. We are symmetrical. It takes one mouth and one ear to have a conversation. Symmetry; no unfair advantage to the parties chosing to communicate. Upload necessarily equals download.
What needs to be done? The rules, the franchise, for allowing stringing and operation of these cable wires should require open access to these wires on a fair, symmetrical, democratic, economically viable basis. Consider that voice over cable is just another P2P application. Here is a link to a P2P attempt that demonstrates this: »www.skype.com/ . The topology of the Internet does not require another AT&T or CBS in a centralized location to deliver these exclusive services. Each and every computer equipped with a speaker and microphone can run software that creates such capabilities if open access can be shepherded here.
Can I PLEASE use my computer as it was meant to be used? Can I use its built in ability to create Personal Web Pages, share my voice, and ideas with others? At least make the wire in my backyard open access for all to offer applications. Implement industry approved and tested 'triple the bandwidth-DOCSIS 2.0 products. Purchase DOCSIS 2.0 CMTS. If not yet available from CISCO, purchase it elsewhere. DOCSIS mandated inter-vendor compatibility. Who is sleeping with whom?
If CableVision/OOL will not announce a plan to use their franchise to update the plant, in the industry approved manner, to DOCSIS 2.0, and instead wants to steal our bandwidth for their own profit making schemes, then lets give the franchise to someone who will implement DOCSIS 2.0.
As Tursiops_G pointed out above, an agreement at time of purchase is an agreement. When I, and many of you, signed on to OOL, there were no secreted capping going on. It is OOL that has broken our terms of service.
iq100
The Internet: a wire designed for P2P and distributed entrepreneurship
[text was edited by author 2003-09-11 10:11:44] | |
GeekNJ
Premium
join:2000-09-23
Waldwick, NJ
| said by iq100 :
Can I PLEASE use my computer as it was meant to be used? Can I use its built in ability to create Personal Web Pages, share my voice, and ideas with others? At least make the wire in my backyard open access for all to offer applications.
Sure you can. No one is stopping you other then it's against the TOS. But yes, you can physically do it. Make sure you're patched and protected first.
--
Have you tweaked your OOL connection? | |
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
| GeekNJ wrote, "Sure you can. No one is stopping you other then it's against the TOS."
Thanks Geek for stepping up to the plate and being as honest about this as the present situation allows.
And congratulations on your posting milestone! 
»Re: OT: GeekNJ -- Time for you to get a life, freak
iq100
[text was edited by author 2003-09-11 10:36:59] | |
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs:
| reply to iq100
quote:
A company given a free ride on our property to make money without competition, because for the most part only CableVision has been granted a franchise by our governments.
how is OOL given a FREE ride? they have to pay rent to hang wires.
quote:
I am for capitalism. I am for the profit system to allow creation of the best system. But when one company is essentially the only company allowed to string wires
i dont know where you get that idea, ANYONE can come in and string up wires if they wanted. example RCN, they tried to overbuild different cable companies in different area's, guess what IT DOESN"T WORK. they are in the process of selling off their systems now because its not economically possible for 2 cable systems to exist.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-11 14:48:12] | |
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
| hi plat2on1,
you wrote, "how is OOL given a FREE ride? they have to pay rent to hang wires."
You seem just the guy to answer a couple of questions:
1. Who owns the poles?
2. How much 'rent' do they charge for a company to sting wires to the pole?
iq100 | |
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs: | usually its the power company that owns the poles as for how much it costs, you should probably ask them. | |
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
| plat2on1, on Long Island two different entities own the poles. One is LIPA, the other is Verizon. Without a knowledge of who own the poles or what they charge for the use thereof, or the politics thereof, your statement, "ANYONE can come in and string up wires if they wanted" is not illuminating. Could you just be WRONG? Do you think you could climb the pole in my backyard and all over my neighborhood and install your wire?
iq100 | |
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs: | oh come on. do we have to spell everything out for you. of course by anyone i mean any company. of course I cannot go up a pole and string wire as i dont have the required certifications to work with such equipment. | |
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
| plat2on1, The issue is not whether it is an individual or a company that climbs up the pole in my backyard on my property. The issues are at what price, and whether it is open to all bidders serving what the public defines to be in the publics', and not a particular company or individuals interest. If you do not know the price, your statement that, "ANYONE can come in and string up wires if they wanted" is rather misleading.
I read your post on another thread, "that 12 year old girl settled out of court for 2 grand. heh"
I do not think it is funny, funny, hey, hey for the RIAA to extract 2 grand from a 12 year old girl. Much of this is about power politics. Such power need to be, shall I say, Capped.
iq100
Power politics needs to be capped.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-11 15:38:15] | |
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY
clubs:
| said by iq100 :
I read your post on another thread, "that 12 year old girl settled out of court for 2 grand. heh"
I do not think it is funny, funny, hey, hey for the RIAA to extract 2 grand from a 12 year old girl. Much of this is about power politics. Such power need to be, shall I say, Capped.
iq100
Power politics needs to be capped.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-11 15:38:15]
who said a 12 year old girl paying 2 grand to the RIAA is funny? | |
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY | plat2on1, sorry ... then glad we agree. Power politics needs to be capped.
iq100 | |
Sedated3
Shooting Rubberbands At The Stars
Premium
join:2002-11-02
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:
| reply to the_mule
Re: Catchy topic? Hows this 'pathping got me capp
IQ100 I have to take issue with something.
".. Sure, and my receiving one speeding ticket makes me a menace on the road. But unlike speeding tickets which only catch a fraction of speeders, this policy catches just about anyone anyone who speeds but once"
--
I do not and will never concede that a 500 second run of pathping is abusive, speeding, or anything of the sort.
It's absurd and the height of ridicule. The modem just sat there for 21 hours. Pathping is a diagnostic command, jeez, it's not Kazaa!
I received an email from a friend out on the West Coast and she was dealing with the after effects of MS Blaster. After letting her know of a program which is built with Ethereal but is far more thorough in the way you can visualize ingress/egress traffic patterns and raw packets - »www.packetyzer.com [Try this proggie guys, you'll find it a keeper!].
She still couldn't make a go of it. Verizon had disabled some forms of tracerts (a straight DOS ICMP tracert will not work at the moment) due again to worm traffic. Pathping, without working ICMP TRACERT is useless. It will only trace as far as the last ICMP pingable hop.
Saying "I know better, this is going to do it for me", I scooted over to another PC and typed 'docsdiag' which had me at QoS Up=1mbit, down 10mbit. My outbound signal level was very high as usual (61dBmV, already scheduled for third appt to try and get it resolved which is another mini-saga in itself, but I'll spare you guys.)
Full of doubt, fear, and machismo wanting to show a 9ms ping reaching out to Europe and also wanting to help out, I typed the blasted command:
pathping bonet.se
Here's a shorter pathping output from one of my Verizon ADSL line (due to the above issue I couldn't
Now then I typed "pathping bonet.se" - please try this at home if you guys are brave.
And I was capped.
Did I "speed?" Tell me if this is "speeding"
C:\work>pathping www.gte.net
Tracing route to www.gte.net [206.46.189.11]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
0 SUPERSTRING [162.84.153.219]
1 10.32.101.1
2 at-4-3-0-1720.CORE-RTR1.NY325.verizon-gni.net [130.81.10.33]
3 so-0-0-0-0.BB-RTR1.NY325.verizon-gni.net [130.81.8.17]
4 so-0-2-0-0.BB-RTR2.NY325.verizon-gni.net [130.81.8.10]
5 so-6-0-0-0.BB-RTR2.NY60.verizon-gni.net [130.81.7.201]
6 130.81.4.22
7 s3-1-1.border1.nyc-ny.vzlink.com [206.46.128.206]
8 gigchannel9-0--12-0.core1.dfw-tx.vzlink.com [206.46.128.78]
9 www.gte.net [206.46.189.11]
Computing statistics for 225 seconds...
Source to Here This Node/Link
Hop RTT Lost/Sent = Pct Lost/Sent = Pct Address
0 SUPERSTRING [162.84.153.219]
0/ 100 = 0% |
1 19ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 10.32.101.1
0/ 100 = 0% |
2 22ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% at-4-3-0-1720.CORE-RTR1.NY325.verizon-gni.net [130.81.10.33]
0/ 100 = 0% |
3 21ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% so-0-0-0-0.BB-RTR1.NY325.verizon-gni.net [130.81.8.17]
0/ 100 = 0% |
4 21ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% so-0-2-0-0.BB-RTR2.NY325.verizon-gni.net [130.81.8.10]
0/ 100 = 0% |
5 21ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% so-6-0-0-0.BB-RTR2.NY60.verizon-gni.net [130.81.7.201]
0/ 100 = 0% |
6 21ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% 130.81.4.22
0/ 100 = 0% |
7 62ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% s3-1-1.border1.nyc-ny.vzlink.com [206.46.128.206]
0/ 100 = 0% |
8 62ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% gigchannel9-0--12-0.core1.dfw-tx.vzlink.com [206.46.128.78]
0/ 100 = 0% |
9 61ms 0/ 100 = 0% 0/ 100 = 0% www.gte.net [206.46.189.11]
Trace complete.
I suppose I should now be frightened to ever use tcptracepath, perform a UDP trace and stick to changing bytes in the header of acknowledgement packages to ever run a simple tracert/ping command again without triggering my third strike. How wonderful, just what I needed to waste yet more time on.
I, menace to society.
Sed
--
Cordially,Sed[OOL/CVC 10.13mbps/950kbps CABLE $44.95 && Verizon 1525kbps/136kbps ADSL $29.99]BBS History Repeats Itself! Ride The Copper, Fly on Coax Baby! | |
iq100
join:2002-02-06
Cold Spring Harbor, NY
| Monopolistic OOL power needs to be Capped!!!
Hi Sed, The quote you referenced above, "...Sure, and my receiving one speeding ticket ,..." was NOT mine. I believe it was authored by the_mule. Otherwise I agree with your sentiments. The evidence is in. The conclusion of this multi-part thread on CAPPING, ought to be that it is CableVision/OOL that has summarily abused the terms of the TOS, and often without either notice or creditability, and for the prime purpose of attempting to dictate that the wires we have allowed them to string through our backyards should be used for their commercial bandwidth needs like OOL Voice and who knows what else. It is the powers that be, that need to be, shall we dare say, CAPPED!
quote:
the_mule wrote, "So I ask you, on what biases do you suppose that those being capped are hardcore network abuses—is it only because they are in fact capped? Sure, and my receiving one speeding ticket makes me a menace on the road. But unlike speeding tickets which only catch a fraction of speeders, this policy catches just about anyone anyone who speeds but once and instead of issuing them it a ticket, it throttles them and doesn’t even bother telling them. In the end, there is no telling how many people have been capped, including those who were never hardcore network abusers but only exceeded the limit once. Talk about flawed logic and rhetoric…"
iq100
Cablevision/OOL have without notice changed the terms of service. Such unconscionable, if not illegal, breach of contract, needs to be, shall we dare say the word: CAPPED!!
[text was edited by author 2003-09-12 09:16:31] | |
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
Yonkers, NY
| reply to the_mule
Re: Catchy topic? Hows this 'pathping got me capp
I'm including a large number of links. I urge anyone that is actually interested in understanding this topic to read them so they can understand the issues.
said by the_mule:
I’m sorry TheWiseGuy, beyond the stories posted here by fellow customers,
This forum is an excellent indicator of what is occurring on the OOL network. The many firmware threads with the large number of posters tells us this is a well known forum. When there are problems with the mail server, the news server or DNS servers they are reported here, many times before OOL even know about them at all. If Sedated's situation was a typical case, and capping the heavy user was not the actual goal of capping, there would be a large number of reports here. I said early on when one user reported being capped for sending at 50kbps, that if there was a pattern of reports of users being capped for non-heavy usage, that my position would change, but over the course of 9 months I have seen only a couple of reports (and anyone could claim that here). If OOL was capping users who were not extremely heavy bandwidth users and capping them was not the goal of capping there would be many reports in this forum from people who were not heavy users, and reports from regulars of being capped unfairly. Almost all of the reports have been from users who admit to running high bandwidth servers. Dumwaldo has related that the capping effected a large number of IRC bots that were probably hacked machines. The number of users reporting being capped here has dropped substantially indicating that most users were heavy users that have adjusted their usage.
Please give me a logical reason why OOL would cap anyone but very high bandwidth users. The Upstream has a total Upstream capacity over the course of 24 hours of 54GB's, this is more than enough for normal use. Looking at the usage patterns of customers
»www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2002/1002/10c.htm
said by cedmagazine.com:
Currently, most broadband customers access the Internet over "untiered" systems, with no limits on data transfers. Even on these systems, the uber users are the exception, not the rule. Nine out of 10 people who subscribe to broadband Internet services consume less than 20 GB per month, which works out to just over half of the total amount of bandwidth used in an average month. A little over half of the subscribers to cable modem service download less than 2 GB per month, or about 5 percent of total monthly consumption.
The totals here are cumulative for Upload and download. Again explain to me why OOL would cap anyone but the extremely heavy user and increase service calls and risk revenue from annoyed customers who leave.
There were many problems caused by heavy upstream bandwidth use reported in this forum by gamers and other users in the several years I have read and posted here before capping occured. Many of use predicted and wanted action taken by OOL to keep the network from suffering due to a small number of users. There is a lot of evidence that a small number of users cause congestion problems.
said by the yankee group:
For example, Time Warner Cable recognized that 5 percent of its customers were using 95 percent of its network capacity.
said by businessweek:
RUNNING FOR COVER. The cable companies' adoption of new pricing strategies has less to do with stopping piracy than with economics and business models. At an average monthly cost of $45, broadband is still perceived as too expensive by many consumers, and in recent months, prices have been rising, rather than dropping. That's slowing subscriber growth. According to market-research firm ARS, the rate of new signups for broadband in the first quarter of 2002 slid to 12%, the worst quarter on record.
Disappointing demand has left cable operators scrambling to cover the $60 billion they spent building and upgrading their networks over the past decade. At the same time, they've tired of seeing a small group of heavy users tax their networks while paying the same flat rate as everybody else. AT&T Broadband says on its system, 1% percent of users account for 16% of bandwidth consumption.
The ability of an ISP to monitor individual bandwidth without spending a large number of man hours was not available to recently. claiming that VoIP which has barely been rolled out was the cause certainly sounds like someone who is strecting to make a claim. VoIP adds revenue and this can certainly justify the adding of equipment for any bandwidth needed.
»www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2002/1002/10d.htm
quote:
Holes in cable’s dragnet
With no systematic, network-wide ability to view the bandwidth consumption of individual cable modems, MSOs have been forced to develop SNMP-based tools that can be used to scan a limited number of cable modems at a specific instant in time.
A VP for OOL, 6-12 months before capping started, when investigating issues for users having problems, confirmed that OOL had no way to monitor individual bandwidth usage without a decent amount of work.
Upgrading the CMTS is very expensive.
»www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2003/0803/08c.htm
said by cedmagazine:
Or ripping out old ones, a chilling proposition for most MSOs.
"We won’t rip out DOCSIS 1.0 or 1.1 equipment to deploy 2.0," says Jay Rolls, vice president of telephone and data engineering for Cox Communications. "If we had 1.0-only [equipment that’s] not upgradeable to 1.1 we might, but capex is a real issue. Now, we’re only buying 2.0 modems."
Cisco has no illusions about the mounting challenge of meeting MSO needs, Stanger admits. "We’re talking IP here, and the challenge is to marry DOCSIS and CMTS platforms and help MSOs migrate their networks to IP efficiently without trashing lots of legacy equipment," he says. "If they can upgrade existing chassis with a single upgrade for about $4 million versus an entire new chassis for $12 million, that’s a big cost savings."
said by the_mule:
that infamous ‘Potential Security Brief’ came in December of 2002
This women certainly might have welcomed the letter. Certainly to most members of this forum it may have seemed to be a joke but it might have saved her a lot of trouble.
»story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s···2003sep9
quote:
The next day, she took her Gateway to a local computer club where members erased the song files from her hard drive. It was only then that she found out that Kazaa's software allows others to see which songs she had. "I don't even know how many songs I had," she said.
--
Dog and Butterfly | |
the_mule
join:2002-12-28
| TheWiseGuy, judging by how much you posted and how little you said in you last post you seem to think that I don’t think heavy bandwidth abusers were ever a problem on this shared network or might be without some sort of regulation—yet I haven’t been arguing against Cablevision imposing caps. On the contrary, what I have argued against is the way in which Cablevision goes about it (unlike any other major broadband cable provider) and particularly your argument which ignores just how bad policy is and instead focuses on how good its goals are. OK, here again is what we know; Cablevision has a punitive capping policy which caps users who exceed some unknown upload limit from 10/1mbps to 10/150 kbps and this unknown limit may even change from time and place; furthermore, Cablevision does not tell its customers when they are capped and only removes the punitive cap after the customers contacts them and Cablevision excludes their own VoIP traffic from the mix.
All of this is backed up by what has been reported here on this forum and yet I have chosen to say that customers are capped for ‘exceeding some unknown threshold’ and not for ‘network abuse’—why? Because this saying the former is fact and the latter is just speculation saying that it is only heavy users who are being capped. To make that claim you would have to first define just what you mean exactly by heavy user, and just what will get a customer capped is something only Cablevision is privy too. Yet, Cablevision’s communication with their customers regarding this punitive capping has been sketchy at best and their stated reasons for implementing this policy are all but nonexistent. Instead, they prefer to rely the details of this policy to customer over the phone, telling them to keep there uploads upload under 10 minutes with 15 minutes breaks between them. Now, if you mean to say that a heavy user is anyone who has been capped then I can accept that as fact, but instead you wish to say that it is only heavy users that are capped because of what has been reported here and then suggest that it is the goals of this capping policy that insure that only heavy users are capped—the logic of both assumptions being flawed.
So you hold up the members of this forum as an indicative sampling of the one million Optimum Online customers is horribly flawed because this forum is not a representative swath of Cablevision customers. In other worlds, the typical member here is not necessarily the typical Cablevision customer. For one, there very presence here says something about there interest in all this and there initial interest then makes them privy to information posted here not found too many other places, least of all from Cablevision. It should be no wonder then that that a lot of members here don’t report being capped as they probably know better and might not want to broadcast it if they were. In short, using this forum’s membership as any sort of representational demographic of Cablevision customers is just bad statistics. It should also be obvious that the majority of initial reports of punitive capping were from obvious network abusers and have since trailed off some months after the policy was first implemented, yet you cite this as fact that only extremely heavy bandwidth users are being capped—why? I ask, because logic dictates that most ‘historically’ heavy users were capped once the policy went into effect but the fact that the caps have remained in place has insured that most users since have not had to opportunity to be a extremely heavy bandwidth users other than of course exceeding the capping threshold once which will then get you capped. In other words, your argument that this policy only punishes the hardcore network abuses might have worked some months ago when it was first introduced but not now. On the contrary, what you are more likely to see now are fewer stories of people abusing the network and more stories of people being capped for what would otherwise not be considered network abuse which is exactly what we are seeing now.
Then you ask me to give you a logical reason why Cablevision would cap anyone but very high bandwidth users. Easy—they implement a punitive capping policy that that does not target just high bandwidth users but anyone who exceeds the thresholds which triggers a cap. Now, you can suppose all you want that they are only going after the heavy users and then I’ll just ask you to give me one logical reason why they don’t outline what most likely will get you capped and then not tell you if you are? How does this help them then accomplish the goal of going after only the very high bandwidth users since anyone without an understanding of what might get you can be—then, having been capped are not even told so? Right, so a customer who has never been a heavy user gets capped once and stays capped because they exceeded the threshold but once, including those who had done so because they simply did not know any better or because they did so unbeknownst to them. I say that it really doesn’t matter what explanation Cablevision gives for the policy because the logic of policy insures that that its not just heavy users who are capped and stay capped. All the policy really does then is scare those customers who know about it into not using their upload and runs the obvious risk of capping those who do who might otherwise not even be hardcore network abusers. No, these don’t sound like the uber users talked about in the very articles you cited.
Then you ask me to explain to you why Cablevision would cap anyone but the extremely heavy user and increase service calls and risk revenue from annoyed customers who leave. Easy—you just don’t tell you customers when they have been punitively capped and you make the cap itself something that might fly under most people’s radar. Really, this isn’t the first time I’ve pointed this out and yet you’ve chose to ignore to only now just turn around and beg the question yourself. Are you really that focused on what you think is the good of this policy that you’re simply blind to the bad of it? But you’re citing the story of the woman, Comcast, and RIAA as an example of the good that might come out of better communication between ISPs and their customers is just rich, really. I’m all for—there should be a lot more of it—including Cablevision outlining to their customers what most likely will get them capped and then telling them when they are. Besides, there is just no reason for them not too, really. | |
jaa
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| said by the_mule :
OK, here again is what we know; Cablevision has a punitive capping policy which caps users who exceed some unknown upload limit from 10/1mbps to 10/150 kbps and this unknown limit may even change from time and place; furthermore, Cablevision does not tell its customers when they are capped and only removes the punitive cap after the customers contacts them and Cablevision excludes their own VoIP traffic from the mix.
Exactly! So what is it that you don't understand? BTW, judgemental words like "punitive" diminish your otherwise objective statement.
As you point out, their capping algorithms are far from perfect. Life is just not fair.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. | |
the_mule
join:2002-12-28
| Punitive—inflicting or aiming to inflict punishment; punishing; punishment—a penalty imposed for wrongdoing. So how is calling Cablevision capping policy punitive that imposes a penalty (capping customers at 10mbps/150kbps) for wrongdoing (exceeding some unknown upload limit) judgmental again? No, life is not fair and in Cablevision’s case it’s by design. | |
|
