 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:01:03 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 4/29/2010 2:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, the only reason I haven't moved to cable from my DSL is that I
>> would have to deal with Comcast, and they have some (IMHO) stupid ideas
>> about 'net neutrality' and what "unlimited" means.
>
> Yeah, I've read about that. I think they backed down on it a bit. Once
> FiOS is available, I'll probably jump from cable to that. Time Warner
> isn't exactly innocent, either.
Yeah, in general the cable companies act as monopolies in the US, because
there's generally only one provider per area.
My DSL line is through Covad Communications, but ISP service is
Earthlink, and the DSL line at the point of service is actually owned by
Qwest (our local telco). When I do have problems with the line, it's
messy to sort out, but it's been several years since I had a problem that
was actually messy to fix (and that was a lightning strike a the CO that
took out something like 40,000 people).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:13:11 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospam com> did spake thusly:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:06:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what
>> you see on TV.
>
> True, but it isn't terrible, either. I occasionally use it myself
> through a proxy in Scotland, generally does OK.
Hey hey we're the ones who forking out for that you know. I don't know
staying over there, using your 'proxies', and stealing our TV. Can't you
just wait until some cable company does a remake of them? ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>
> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards.
No, it isn't.
AFAIK, it also isn't sufficiently high either.
> It's what I've got, and the Netflix streaming works.
Hmm, interesting...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:02:16 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Again, that's all very nice. But unless you have insane levels of
>>> bandwidth available, it's not going to work.
>>
>> 3 Mbps isn't "insane" by today's standards.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> AFAIK, it also isn't sufficiently high either.
What part of "I stream HD content from Netflix and it works fine over a 3
Mbps line" is unclear? Obviously, it *has* to be sufficiently high or it
wouldn't work for me.
>> It's what I've got, and the Netflix streaming works.
>
> Hmm, interesting...
Like I said, it works great here, contrary to your assertion that 3 Mbps
isn't sufficiently high to do what it is that I'm doing.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/29/10 17:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
>>> YouTube or iPlayer. It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a
>>> load
>>
>> Depends on the country you live in.
>
> Whether it's technically possible or not doesn't depend on where you live
> at all.
>
> Whether it's *legal* or not is an entirely different matter, and proving
> an ISP is using traffic shaping can be difficult to do.
I was referring to legality.
--
Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/29/10 17:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I think they lost the battle for unlimited (as in it is currently
>> unlimited). The recent ruling on net neutrality bodes ill - but what
>> makes you sure DSL won't change in the future?
>
> Nothing makes me sure, just that my current situation is one I can live
> with. If the circumstances change, then I'll change at my earliest
> opportunity. If they want to keep me as a customer, they won't mess with
> it.
You're not that valuable. There are only a few games in town, and I've
pretty much never seen high speed Internet companies cater to that
extent. Less than 0.1% of their customers will care about this.
>> Me? I hate contracts.
>
> Same here. My DSL modem died and to get a replacement provided, I had to
> agree to another year of service. Of course, that was more than a year
> ago so now it's a moot point, but at the time, I was annoyed because it
> was *their* hardware and not mine, so basically my choice was to drop
> them or sign up for another year (or buy my own DSL modem and be even
> more unsupported than I am now).
See what I mean?
--
Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:32:48 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 04/29/10 17:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I think they lost the battle for unlimited (as in it is currently
>>> unlimited). The recent ruling on net neutrality bodes ill - but what
>>> makes you sure DSL won't change in the future?
>>
>> Nothing makes me sure, just that my current situation is one I can live
>> with. If the circumstances change, then I'll change at my earliest
>> opportunity. If they want to keep me as a customer, they won't mess
>> with it.
>
> You're not that valuable. There are only a few games in town, and
I've
> pretty much never seen high speed Internet companies cater to that
> extent. Less than 0.1% of their customers will care about this.
I'm not saying I am that valuable; but in the end, I get the choice of
deciding to leave them - and I've been with them for 7 years now, and
generally don't cause them a lot of support headaches (I think I've
called in twice, and ultimately I had to explain to them how to fix the
problem - and one time was for the dead modem).
Though in one of those cases, I did escalate the issue to their executive
level because I was getting no joy out of their support services. I was
impressed with the service *that* got me.
>>> Me? I hate contracts.
>>
>> Same here. My DSL modem died and to get a replacement provided, I had
>> to agree to another year of service. Of course, that was more than a
>> year ago so now it's a moot point, but at the time, I was annoyed
>> because it was *their* hardware and not mine, so basically my choice
>> was to drop them or sign up for another year (or buy my own DSL modem
>> and be even more unsupported than I am now).
>
> See what I mean?
Well, yeah, but I'm not sure what your point is....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:30:43 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 04/29/10 17:56, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> ISPs can throttle the traffic based on where it is coming from, eg
>>>> YouTube or iPlayer. It's in their interest to do this, otherwise a
>>>> load
>>>
>>> Depends on the country you live in.
>>
>> Whether it's technically possible or not doesn't depend on where you
>> live at all.
>>
>> Whether it's *legal* or not is an entirely different matter, and
>> proving an ISP is using traffic shaping can be difficult to do.
>
> I was referring to legality.
Even still, that doesn't mean that the providers don't mess with traffic
intentionally (or not) or employ traffic shaping technologies - or that
traffic isn't shaped at *some* point between source and destination. The
only way to guarantee whether it is or isn't is to own all the points
between the source and destination; if, say, in South Africa it was
illegal to do traffic shaping, that doesn't prevent Level2 Communications
from applying some shaping that affects people in South Africa if their
data happens to cross the Level2 network.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/30/10 22:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I was referring to legality.
>
> Even still, that doesn't mean that the providers don't mess with traffic
> intentionally (or not) or employ traffic shaping technologies - or that
> traffic isn't shaped at *some* point between source and destination. The
True, but then again, it doesn't mean they do mess with traffic, either.
--
CONgress (n) - Opposite of PROgress
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 09:05:02 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> True, but then again, it doesn't mean they do mess with traffic,
> either.
I never said they always do, just that they may - so I don't understand
the point of what you've said here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
