Mike Raiford escreveu:
> On 4/27/2010 12:59 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New escreveu:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> BTW, don't you guys find it funny that ADSL is "dial-up" too?
>>>
>>> Not really. It's built into the line card, so you're not actually
>>> dialing anything. You're just using the same wires you would be
>>> dialing on.
>>
>> really? I used to connect without a line filter in my other telephone
>> across the room and, thus, if you happened to pick up the nearby phone
>> while it was connecting, you would listen to a bit of that "folkloric"
>> well-known old-modem dialing-up tune.
>>
> 
> probably hearing some artifacts from the out-of-band signaling the ADSL 
> modem is doing. Which is why you need the filter ;) I remember back when 
> I had ADSL forgetting a filter on a phone jack, and picking up that 
> phone. It was more like I had a bad connection than anything, though.

I heard white noise in the phone with no filter and in the one next to 
the PC with a filter, I heard in the distance the very same connection 
"song" of old modems as it was connecting.  Once connected, no further 
noise.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford escreveu:
> On 4/27/2010 11:23 AM, nemesis wrote:
> 
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> seems like Andrew still got some 30 years ahead to fully get to grips
>> with the real world...
>>
> 
> Why doesn't my Atari 2600 do HD?

I was talking about modern game consoles.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Tapping midway between beats with variable accuracy is NOT valid. ;-)

  Of course it is. It's called jazz.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28/04/2010 2:23 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
> Pah bent-tape-measure, professionals use ferrets :-)

Ee oop lad. I’ve told thee to keep thy ferret to thy self :-P


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Tapping midway between beats with variable accuracy is NOT valid. ;-)
> 
>   Of course it is. It's called jazz.

LOL!

[Insert witty remark here about holding down half a dozen 
randomly-chosen notes simultaneously.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> http://vimeo.com/9078364
> 
> youtube sucks...

...is something supposed to happen?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> besides game consoles, many people for the past few years have been 
> connecting computers to their large screen FullHD TVs.  Because, you 
> know, it's usually more pleasing seeing images at a large screen from 
> the comfort of your sofa (yeah, with a wireless keyboard) rather than 
> sitting a few inches away from a much smaller screen.

Not if you're a programmer... although admittedly few people are.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
> 
>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>
>> youtube sucks...
> 
> ...is something supposed to happen?

besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, it 
should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in general...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

>>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>>
>>
>> ...is something supposed to happen?
> 
> besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, it 
> should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in general...

Well, I clicked play and stared at a black screen for about 10 minutes 
before giving up.

Maybe I need to try at a different time of day or something?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...is something supposed to happen?
>>
>> besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, 
>> it should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in 
>> general...
> 
> Well, I clicked play and stared at a black screen for about 10 minutes 
> before giving up.
> 
> Maybe I need to try at a different time of day or something?

huh?

it's blocked here at work, I just had the link.  You may look up 'Nuit 
Blanche' in vimeo...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:24:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> bedroom would be more valuable, so all we have to do is patch the holes
>> from the mounts for the screen and the projector - no problem. :-)
> 
> Oh, these were just bolted to planks, basically. Totally movable. Not
> really the actual movie theatre experience, I'll grant.

Yeah, something similar with our ceiling mount.

> We did have a row of airplane seats for a while, after the Frnklin
> Institute science museum closed their 747 exhibit and basically threw
> away the plane. Did you know insurance companies value a row of 747
> seats at about $700, or at least did when we had the house fire back in
> 1985?

Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)

And fire?  Sounds like a story....

>> If we were going to be here longer, I'd have even run the wires for the
>> speakers in the walls. :-)
> 
> That works even if you sell the house, mind. :-)  I had ethernet put in
> the walls before the put the drywall up, but I definitely should have
> had the speaker wires run too.

Oh, true, and I wish I'd done Ethernet while we were in the walls.

>> Looks like I can get my bulbs sub-$300,
> 
> I think my brother pays $800 or so for his. They're extra super bright
> or some nonsense. :-)

Yeah, we did blackout fabric on the windows (attached with velcro, 
actually), so we run the lamp at low power, generally gives us a good 
picture unless we've got the windows open.  But I went in and watched Law 
& Order: Criminal Intent during lunch today (oh the joy of working from 
home), and I didn't bother putting the shade up on the south window - 
kinad overcast today anyways.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:50:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:25:12 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>> > Question: Why aren't there any widescreen cinemas yet?
> 
>> I missed this the first time around, don't know about in MK, but over
>> here, ALL of the cinemas are widescreen.
> 
>   Are there any cinemas in existence that aren't? (Discounting perhaps
> some home-made cinemas in some poor countries showing pirated movies
> from VHS...)

I wouldn't think so, since the cameras used in moviemaking are all 
widescreen of some sort (anamorphic, 16:9, or some other variation).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:02:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> When do you think that day will be?
>> 
>> Not only is it here. It's a commodity.
>> 
>> http://www.netflix.com/NetflixReadyDevices
> 
> I don't follow.

Netflix streaming video service.  I use it myself, generally get good 
results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.

Or hulu.com.  Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:35:30 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 4/27/2010 8:15 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 04/27/10 07:57, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> Whats not to follow? They stream movies directly from the internet
>>> (albeit at SD resolutions ..)
>>
>> 	Depends on how you define SD - I've seen movies through it that 
are
>> definitely beyond DVD quality.
>>
>>
> I think the resolution actually tops out somewhere around 720x480. Their
> STB only supports the SD mode, though it may be progressive scan, or it
> could be that you have a high enough bandwidth connection that you're
> getting less compression.
> 
> What I have seen does indeed rival DVD in terms of picture quality,
> though.

It does; we stream from Netflix to our PS3, resolution isn't bad often 
times (depends on the congestion on the network).  The other day I 
watched Chaplin because I'd never seen it - a few places the picture 
quality dropped out, but it was definitely watchable.  They only do 
stereo sound, though, which was annoying (what with a 7.1 system in the 
room).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible 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.  It's what I've got, and the 
Netflix streaming works.  Did I mention I project the image on a 9' 
diagonal screen?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:10:43 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> nemesis wrote:
> 
>> besides game consoles, many people for the past few years have been
>> connecting computers to their large screen FullHD TVs.  Because, you
>> know, it's usually more pleasing seeing images at a large screen from
>> the comfort of your sofa (yeah, with a wireless keyboard) rather than
>> sitting a few inches away from a much smaller screen.
> 
> Not if you're a programmer... although admittedly few people are.

Has nothing to do with being a programmer.  I know quite a few 
professional software engineers who have home cinema setups to watch 
movies, and far prefer that over watching in front of their computer 
screen.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)

Coach, actually.  But now that you mention it, I have to wonder why.

> And fire?  Sounds like a story....

Not much of a story. 1985, house caught on fire while we weren't home, got 
home, no people hurt, pets dead, expensive and annoying to repair thing.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:15:40 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Wow - I assume 1st class seating, not coach. ;-)
> 
> Coach, actually.  But now that you mention it, I have to wonder why.

Weird....

>> And fire?  Sounds like a story....
> 
> Not much of a story. 1985, house caught on fire while we weren't home,
> got home, no people hurt, pets dead, expensive and annoying to repair
> thing.

:-(  Sorry to hear that (I know, it was a long time ago, but loss of home 
and pets is a bad memory).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/28/10 06:35, Mike Raiford wrote:
> I think the resolution actually tops out somewhere around 720x480. Their
> STB only supports the SD mode, though it may be progressive scan, or it
> could be that you have a high enough bandwidth connection that you're
> getting less compression.

	I'm guessing bandwidth. Speakeasy claims 25 Mb/s, although in practice
it's always lower. I get download rates exceeding 1.5 MB/s (bytes).

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> You know that pitch perception is logarithmic, right?
> 
> She was still off by 10x as much as I was.  Things that sounded the same 
> were a good semitone or even full tone different.

That's quite impressive...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
> 
> Probably not.  Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the backbone.

Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't follow.
> 
> Netflix streaming video service.  I use it myself, generally get good 
> results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.
> 
> Or hulu.com.  Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.

BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what 
you see on TV.

Post a reply to this message

> BBC iPlayer I've actually used. The quality is not even close to what you 
> see on TV.

What bandwidth did you have available at the time?

Try this page to check:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/diagnostics

After it's done the tests it tells you which services you can get in 
realtime.  I've never used it, but I assume there are options for HD (3500 
kbps), and various bandwidth versions for SDTV.  The top SDTV one is 1500 
kbps, that should almost be broadcast quality.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:57:40 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:

> Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> http://vimeo.com/9078364
>>>
>>> youtube sucks...
>>  ...is something supposed to happen?
>
> besides bringing some tears to your eyes thanks to a beautiful movie, it  
> should show you better hi-def picture quality than in youtube in  
> general...

Ah I've been corrupted I was a) waiting for everything to speed up and the  
car to hit him and b) thinking if they cut this down to 30 seconds or so  
it'd make a great perfume commercial.

-- 
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

On 4/28/2010 8:44 AM, Invisible wrote:

> It is utterly baffling to me that this is possible. In my experience,
> YouTube on its own is very unreliable. At certain times of day it's just
> unusuable, while at other times it's just about stable. (I guess this is
> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)

For a while I was severely annoyed with Youtube, it seemed like no 
matter what, you'd get huge delays and it would take forever to stream. 
The thing with video sharing services like that is that it's really 
dependent on the source material. e.g. If the source material is 
compressed beyond reason, then it'll look like crap, no matter what. 
I've seen some videos on Youtube that look beautiful, but I've also seen 
videos on Youtube where I couldn't exactly tell what I was looking at.

With Netflix, at least the source is of good quality, so you get decent 
quality video.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 4/28/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible 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.  It's what I've got, and the

Hardly. Barely average now ... :D

> a 9' diagonal screen

want... :D

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 4/28/2010 11:18 AM, nemesis wrote:

>> Why doesn't my Atari 2600 do HD?
>
> I was talking about modern game consoles.

Yeah, I know ... but it seems like Andrew is living somewhere in the past :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 4/28/2010 4:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Has nothing to do with being a programmer.  I know quite a few
> professional software engineers who have home cinema setups to watch
> movies, and far prefer that over watching in front of their computer
> screen.

I have an HTPC connected to my TV that I use for watching streaming 
video and movies. Much more relaxed and comfortable than sitting at my 
desk.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 4/28/2010 9:54 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

>
> Isn't "NTSC color" like "ATM machine"?

But its still very common usage. We come from the department of 
redundancy department. ;)

> Oh wait, "Never Twice Same Color" is not the official acronym meaning? :)

No, no it isn't. :) But it seems like it should be.. :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4bd93db9$1@news.povray.org...
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?

Example: Orange (aka France Telecom aka Suicide Alley) had a falling out 
with Cogent, who provides transit from the US to them. Result: until their 
little quarrel is resolved, Cogent is throttling the tubes(1) so watching 
YouTube or downloading from MegaUpload has become a PITA at certain hours. 
It does affect all US-based content, though it's more obvious with video or 
filesharing. Orange users were a little bit annoyed when they discovered 
that other ISPs were not affected.

G.

(1) Actually, some people are accusing Cogent, others blame Orange.

Post a reply to this message

> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?

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 of people 
using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet connection to a halt.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
> 
> 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 
> of people using iPlayer could easily bring everyone's internet 
> connection to a halt.

More precisely: ISPs are based on the idea that nobody will use all of 
the bandwidth they've paid for, and therefore it's OK for the ISPs to 
provision the backbone with only a tiny fraction of the bandwidth 
actually required.

And now YouTube and iPlayer are changing the way people use the 
Internet, and ISPs are trying to claim that it's YouTube's "fault" for 
being "irresponsible" by using up all this bandwidth - rather than 
admitting that their networks are underprovisioned because it's more 
profitable that way.

Still, once they start charging by the GB rather than the day, the 
"problem" will solve itself...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:05:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> probably due more to server load than end-user bandwidth though.)
>> 
>> Probably not.  Probably due to bottlenecks between you and the
>> backbone.
> 
> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?

Not necessarily.  Bottlenecks can appear between any two nodes in a 
network, not just the last hop.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:06:11 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 4/28/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:18:21 +0100, Invisible 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.  It's what I've got, and
>> the
> 
> Hardly. Barely average now ... :D

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.

My current ISP's policy is basically "we lease you a data pipe; what you 
do with it, as long as you're not disrupting anyone, is your business".

>> a 9' diagonal screen
> 
> want... :D

It's very nice. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:06:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> I don't follow.
>> 
>> Netflix streaming video service.  I use it myself, generally get good
>> results over a 3 Mbps (down) DSL connection.
>> 
>> Or hulu.com.  Or BBC iPlayer for that matter.
> 
> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/29/10 07:54, scott wrote:
>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
> 
> 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.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

On 04/29/10 12:12, 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.
	
	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?

	Me? I hate contracts.

-- 
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:51:10 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 04/29/10 07:54, scott wrote:
>>> Shouldn't that affect *all* traffic, not just YouTube?
>> 
>> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:53:58 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 04/29/10 12:12, 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.
> 	
> 	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.

> 	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).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

> My current ISP's policy is basically "we lease you a data pipe; what you
> do with it, as long as you're not disrupting anyone, is your business".
>
>>> a 9' diagonal screen
>>
>> want... :D
>
> It's very nice. :-)
>
> Jim


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

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] nospamcom> 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