plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Franksville, WI
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Apophis
Re: WE WANT MORE UPLOAD
said by Apophis  :
We want more upload oh, and drop that server clause as well...
I agree. I currently have no problems with my current speed (1800/256), but more of either one would be nice. With them doubling the download, that will make getting OS patches, updates, etc that much faster. I can't see them doubling the download (to 512), but it would be nice if they gave us another 128 down (to 384).
My problem right now is the use of Servers. The argument I always hear why an ISP does not allow/like its users to run servers is that they eat up all the upstream bandwidth. Yet, everyone is allowed to run P2P servers 24/7/365 and no one says Boo to them.
Either force everyone on a given ISP to stop running P2P apps, or allow the rest of us the freedom to run other server applications (Web, FTP, etc). To me, someone running a web site or FTP server 24/7 is the same as someone running a P2P server. They both are using upload, so what difference does it make.
If Comcast would allow residential customers this freedom, I would be very happy with my service.
--
============================
--Brian Plencner
E-Mail: saursesCancer@comcast.net
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail |
|
nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
clubs:
| said by plencnerb :
To me, someone running a web site or FTP server 24/7 is the same as someone running a P2P server. They both are using upload, so what difference does it make.
In fact, most people who run web/ftp for personal use don't get NEARLY as much traffic as someone who runs p2p. p2p = bandwidth hungry, whereas with a web server you generally only see traffic on occasion when someone stumbles onto the site.
Either web or ftp at full load would be identical to p2p in that respect, but the vast majority don't see anywhere near full load. I only see a couple hundred hits a day to mine :-/
--
for all your Linux questions |
|
sadowski
I Am My Own Doppelganger
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-14
Buffalo, NY
clubs:
| reply to plencnerb
said by plencnerb :
My problem right now is the use of Servers. The argument I always hear why an ISP does not allow/like its users to run servers is that they eat up all the upstream bandwidth. Yet, everyone is allowed to run P2P servers 24/7/365 and no one says Boo to them.
A reasonable cap on monthly upstream usage would solve the P2P problem. Assuming we are talking upping the upstream without price hikes then a 10GB upstream monthly cap would not be unreasonable and still provide lots of transfers for non-P2P users.
Increasing downstream speeds, btw, doesn't interest me much. Unless we can all get 10Mb/s it won't matter much if you are 1.5 or 3 or whatever. EVen with 10Mb/s there's not much value at this time because there's not much content out there to exercise that kind of bandwidth, and certainly not free content which is what we use most often.
Very high downstreams are often like owning a fantastic sports car; it can go fast but there's nowhere to drive it. It's just bragging rights.
Give me upstream and the ability to be creative by running servers and providing my own content.
--
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel theydeserve everything they've stole |
|
jphhock
join:2003-09-01
Phoenix, AZ | reply to plencnerb
I think you have your UPLOAD and DOWNLOAD numbers reversed. |
|
