View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Melchior
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 190 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2002 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gorunova wrote: | But let's not count our CDRs until the End is actually nigh. |
True, true. Hopefully Shaw won't impose any nasty download restrictions. Until they do impose restrictions, I'm *quite happy* to continue downloading and burning everytime I feel like it. :D |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sjafira
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 Posts: 10 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2002 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have unfortunately the same problem.. got an email two weeks ago that I was downloading stuff over 7G in a week. UPC Chello (my cable provider *sigh*.. it was not chello when I first got my cable. UPC got this rage to monopolize the comm. market in Holland a couple years back) asked me to cut down my DL traffic "drastically". Gee I thought... cutting it down by 1M? 1G? 2G? they are hiding behind the Acceptable Use Policy, saying that if I don't obey the warnings then they would cut off my connection..
I tried my best to be more selective about what I download, but like Highspar said.. can't go on without anime
eveyday when I refresh my headers.. I always look forward to the new posts.. especially from posters like Inc (your RK posting is much appreciated ^_^), Orgyman and Galen.
Lucky for me up to now everything looks fine with my connection. I have set a DL warning to warn me when I am downloading above 2G in a day.. but it doesn't help at all
Still I am busy trying to find other ISP's.. perhaps ADSL as an option.. just in case Chello decides to cut off my connection anyway... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gorunova
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I got AUPed by Shaw today. Melchior, expect a call.
The guys I talked to were actually very nice and polite about it, but the bottom line was that my average traffic was 50GB down, 5GB up per month, and that's way higher than even the stretching-it limits for their business customers. I was asked to bring the uploads down to under 2GB per month and I was given the impression that they probably wouldn't bother me again as long as my downloads were around 12GB per month or less.
I wonder about their unwillingness to impose an actual hard download limit. He said their general guideline was about 6GB down, but they would let it stretch to around 12GB to avoid hassling people. I wonder if maybe a lot of their customers use more than that.
Anyway, the upload restriction is no problem for me; I'll just post less. One 250MB ep per week and I'll have lots of room to spare.
I had questions about the download thing though. I pointed out that most of my d/l traffic is from their local news server, which doesn't impact their expensive Internet connection. He said that's true, but it does bog down the routers between the news server and me, which could affect other customers in my area (although nobody has actually complained yet). He said it makes no difference if I do it late at night or limit my bandwidth; to avoid having to micromanage the networks and figure out who is interfering with who, they just use these blanket policies that should keep everything working well for everyone.
Because it's bandwidth in general they care about, using P2P or a commercial news service won't save me. Back to having to pick and choose the best downloads. Dammit. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HollyBerries
Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2002 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ugh. The word on the street is that RoadRunner is going to start limiting downloads too. Why on earth do I pay for highspeed if I'm not allowed to download things at high speeds? Ah well. I guess I'll just have to pick and choose between series by word of mouth instead of by watching it myself ;_; |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheRant
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 Posts: 2 Location: Victoria,Canada
|
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2002 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An update and a pessimistic look at the future.
No word from Shaw ,but it hasn't been quite a month yet since their last warning. I've been keeping myself under 1 Gig a day of download, but that'll still be way to high for them.
I've looked around for other options and they seem to be even worse. There are a few DSL suppliers they have draconian download poliies. 6 gig down per month and $10 a gig for anything over that. That really sucks. Then there's Telus , they have an ADSL service at $25 per month (6 gig download) , and for all those download hogs out there for only an extra $20 bucks they'll even give you a whole 8 gig per month. I couldn't find any mention of extra charges for anybody going over the 8 gigs but I bet they're there somewhere.
Now for the pessimism:
I've been searching the net for anything else like this going on but only managed to find a few of interest. Most download limitation sites seem to be just pissing contests between idiots trying to see who has the faster server. I'm sure they are going to be real happy to find out they've got such amazing speeds---for about two hours a month.
It looks like eventually all the highspped suppliers,at least the Canadian ones are planning on implementing this 6 gig cap. I know Rogers and Sympatico (Ontario's biggest suppliers) are, they just haven't decided yet how to implemtent it. The best guess from somebody who was in the biz was they too are going to start that $10 a gig cost for download over the 6 gig limit.
It's the end of the internet as we know it folks.
I'm guessing this is going to be a real trend and the US and the rest of the world will soon jump on the bandwagon. It's really going to be the end of any real internet file sharing, not just the peer-to-peer du jour but IRC,FTP and the usenet.
I bet all binary newsgroups are going to looking a bit ghost-towny by the end of 2002. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gorunova
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2002 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TheRant wrote: |
It looks like eventually all the highspped suppliers,at least the Canadian ones are planning on implementing this 6 gig cap. I know Rogers and Sympatico (Ontario's biggest suppliers) are, they just haven't decided yet how to implemtent it. The best guess from somebody who was in the biz was they too are going to start that $10 a gig cost for download over the 6 gig limit.
|
I had heard that Rogers in Ontario is implementing a tiered system where you pay more for a higher download limit. I don't remember the specific limits they mentioned, but the extra charges were up to $40 per month. Depending on what that buys, I just might go for it if it's introduced here.
A 56K modem running 24/7 on a second phone line is starting to look more attractive, but what are the chances of finding a dialup ISP with excellent binary news service?
As for the future, well, I'm unsurprised but a little disappointed. I had thought the cable companies would be able to see the profit opportunity here - let the "abusers" continue sucking away, but charge them a little bit more. Since news is served locally, it's free money. All they would have to do is implement a speed limit to keep the big downloaders from interfering with other customers on the same router.
Oh well. It was a good free ride while it lasted. I made the most of it. Cable access was the best price per byte ever in Canada. We will see deals like this again, but probably not until every home has a glass line.
Some of my friends have been tossing around the idea of forming a nerdhaus - buy a building, split it into apartments for the lot of us, set up servers and share the cost of a T1 or OC3 line. It's appealing. Others have done it before successfully. Maybe one day... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
moodorky
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 19 Location: la luna
|
Posted: Wed May 01, 2002 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm in Burnaby and am encountering problems with header pulls and downloads from the Shaw servers. Anyone else?
I use newsbin and I time out quite a bit and it's frustrating to see consistently. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sjafira
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 Posts: 10 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu May 02, 2002 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gorunova wrote: |
As for the future, well, I'm unsurprised but a little disappointed. I had thought the cable companies would be able to see the profit opportunity here - let the "abusers" continue sucking away, but charge them a little bit more. Since news is served locally, it's free money. All they would have to do is implement a speed limit to keep the big downloaders from interfering with other customers on the same router.
|
This trend is also starting in Holland. They are "blaming" us, the customers, that we overload their network. *sigh*
Why do they then advertise unlimited internet if we have download limits? I still download approx. 2G a day in spite of the warnings... I try not to dl 24 hours a day.. keeping a day in between...
UPC Chello has cut off the internet connection of some of my friends.. and this is not the end yet unfortunately..
I don't want to sound pessimistic but it seems like that the conclusion if we want to keep on dl then we have to put more money on the table.
I agree with Gurunova about the speed limit. I can DL up to 200kB/sec from my local newsserver.. then 2G a day is downloaded within a morning the temptation to dl more is then also bigger...... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gorunova
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Thu May 02, 2002 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
moodorky wrote: | I'm in Burnaby and am encountering problems with header pulls and downloads from the Shaw servers. Anyone else?
I use newsbin and I time out quite a bit and it's frustrating to see consistently. |
Yes, I frequently get pauses and retries when downloading headers.
You and I probably use the same news server. I use Xnews though,
so it doesn't bother me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gorunova
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Thu May 02, 2002 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sjafira wrote: |
Why do they then advertise unlimited internet if we have download limits?
|
Check your service contract. I was planning to use that argument when they complained about my downloads, but the wording in my contract says that they only promise unlimited connect time, but not unlimited downloads or speed.
Of course they do also advertise high bandwidth compared to phone line modems, but the contract doesn't actually promise that, and neither of those two things (high bandwidth, unlimited connect time) explicitly promises unlimited downloads. It only makes you jump to that conclusion, which is not legally binding. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HollyBerries
Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Thu May 02, 2002 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, advertising and contracts that promise "Unlimited Access" are easily gotten around by Internet companies. I used to work in customer service for an ISP which that was actually their MOTTO, but we'd still cancel people for using their accounts too much. "Unlimited" access, we were to explain, meant that a person could only use an account as much as they could in a day, they couldn't leave it connected while they weren't actively at the computer browsing around (in other words, they couldn't set something to download and walk away) and they DEFINITELY couldn't leave it connected all night. Basically it came down to the companies that the ISP was leasing dialup lines from charged THEM by the minute, so they wanted to get rid of any customers who actually cost them money. I imagine it's a lot the same with Cable providers - they probably get charged for bandwidth by the companies who lease them internet connectivity, so they want to drive off any customers who cost them money as opposed to make them money. And it looks like they'll use similar tactics to do it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gorunova
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Fri May 03, 2002 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HollyBerries wrote: | Basically it came down to the companies that the ISP was leasing dialup lines from charged THEM by the minute, so they wanted to get rid of any customers who actually cost them money. I imagine it's a lot the same with Cable providers - they probably get charged for bandwidth by the companies who lease them internet connectivity, so they want to drive off any customers who cost them money as opposed to make them money. And it looks like they'll use similar tactics to do it. |
Perhaps for some cable providers, but not for mine. When I talked to the AUP guy, I raised that very question. I explained to him that most of my traffic was news from their local news server, and that the way I understood their network setup, my use of their news server didn't generate any traffic over their big Internet pipe. He said that was correct, but they were concerned about possible congestion of the routers between the news server and me.
So I wasn't costing them anything by downloading lots (uploading, yes), but I could have squeezed out other customers.
As for the advertising thing, it's best to always remember that marketroids and land-sharks are the enemies of all that lives, and they work together. The marketers come up with the best lies to tell in order to make money fast, and the lawyers make it so they can't be punished for lying.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
moodorky
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 19 Location: la luna
|
Posted: Sat May 04, 2002 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
With all these upcoming bandwidth issues, should we now start asking/begging people to post in yenc? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Melchior
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 190 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
Posted: Sat May 11, 2002 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I was off on vacation, Shaw sent my folks a threatening email asking them to call Shaw. Which they did.
But it wasn't what you'd expect! No, not by a long shot! They complained about my *uploads*. My mom told me this over the phone while I was in the US. I said "uploads?". Sure enough, she shows me the emails they sent, and they were complaining that we *upload* too much.
Strange. And to think that I think I download too much. I'm gonna have to have a word with my sister about throttling her outgoing connections on those evil file-sharing programs that she uses... Well, that or else perhaps there's some connection to the "File Transfer Program 5.00.2195.2625" that I found had somehow gained full privileges on my server's firewall upon my return. <stupid question> Any recent Windows 2000 hacks? </stupid>.
...Which reminds me, I should take this machine to Windows Update... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Melchior
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 190 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
Posted: Sun May 12, 2002 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
TheRant wrote: | I bet all binary newsgroups are going to looking a bit ghost-towny by the end of 2002. |
The optimist in me tells me that you'll be wrong-- I think that if any anime distribution method has the best chance at succeeding, it's usenet. A broadcast system rather than a P2P system-- upload a file once, have thousands of people download it. Far more efficient that uploading a file every time somebody asks for it.
I do, however, think that a lot of people are going to be a lot more careful about what they download, and probably a lot of people will take off... But with them leaving, probably more will come in from IRC since fewer people with servers will be able to leave them online to provide downloads...
<optimism>...Then since all their customers are making use of Usenet for their downloads and the load on their major network pipes is reduced, Shaw will start to increase their download limits.. </optimism. ...But that'd never happen. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|