Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ianathuth
... but of course I forgot that you cannot be wrong and always have an answer. You have made several statements that are simply untrue but I will not go into them as again, you are always right.
|
is this a discussion or just an opportunity to 'slate' me?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ianathuth
At the end of the day we all know who is responsible for most of the congestion on the net and what they are doing to cause it and no matter what arguments you use it will not alter this fact.
|
and you accuse me of always being right? It seems to me that you have decided who is responsible - end of story. So you believe that 5% of users create 60% of congestion. That's your perogative - but its not what I believe to be ture - and I have explained why I think that. So presumably in 6 months time, after the letters have been sent and behaviour moderated or users removed, we can all expect 60%+ less congestion on the NTL network. Dream on, would be my response to that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ianathuth
Memo to self: Don't respond to Erol's diatribes.
|
Memo to self: Don't argue my case - I will be accused of having to always be right. Don't try and explain why I think the things I do - it will just be used against me.
Then again some here do seem able to have a reasonable discussion. So onto those
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scastle
Ahh the old "Evil phone companies" argument.
|
It's not really that they are evil (or any more so than any large corporation). It's just that they have done business in a certain way for the lastt 100+ years - and a very profitable business it has been. It's hard for such an entity to not try and make tomorrow the same as today. It's inevitable to some degree. What should motivate them to change every tenet of faith they have held for last 100 years is fear. If they do not they may not exist at all in the future. Unfortunately there is imo still not enough 'paranoia' (andy grove style) in the telcos and still too much complacency.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scastle
But I would like to point out that despite advances in Technology, it is still not cheap to maintain/upgrade a network.
|
I do not disagree with that. Telecoms is a 'big business' activity. Vast sums must be spent to build, upgrade and maintain the network. Vast sums are also accrued in revenue. Take BT and a quick rough calculation. 30 million phone lines @ approx £10pm line rental = £3.6 billion per anum. Its not the 'money' thats the problem its what its being spent on. It is still being spent on a network designed to have constrictions, designed to place control in the center of the network (with the telco) and not at the ends (with the user), designed to allow the telco to bundle up and marktet 'verticaly intergrated' products - voice, video, internet. We need to build 'best networks' (where best is best for the users of them and not those that build and run them and best means networks that move the most data at the lowest cost).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scastle
A more sensible option (I will stress that I am not in favour of this option though) would be to have variable speeds. The max speed would lower in peak time, and increase in off peak time (much like Bulldog DSL does).
|
Yes I agree that would have been a better option. Also a better option imo would to have used the standard 'affecting other users' clause in the AUP to target people who upload and download constantly in peak periods (and not just a blanket volume cap). This is pretty much what the majority of other ISPs do.
Yes it is possible to 'abuse' your connection imo. Undoubtedly some people do, to the detriment of others (but only upto 'one users worth' of detriment to others an no more). However to say that someone is abusing the network based solely on volumes dl (with no mention of time of usage or uplaod) is just not the right way to deal with such abuse imo.
Admin Edit: Updated quoted names - K