Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Bandwidth, Animation, Gruvin'

Slashback this evening brings you news and updates on several previous stories, including (not limited to) @home service, Linuxgruven, and some followups to Slashdot book reviews.

More news you can use on the @home front. Anubis333 writes: "After a while talking with customer support, I have learned that Comcast@Home (Soon to be ATT Broadband) has instituted a network-wide cap on user upload to 15KB! (Thats not much more than dialup) Also, they have now capped Usenet news access. What am I paying 50 dollars a month for again? More info on usenet here.

Upon even longer hold times, I found out that when Comcast switches over to ATT the cap will be set to 128KB and the usenet caps will be lifted, also they will support more groups. The full change over will be complete by the end of Feb. Any users in the Savannah Ga. Area, they will start here Jan. 15 and end in early feb. Call support for exact local dates if interested."

Yessir, about oh, yea big by a few more inches ... Dave contributed a link showing a side-by-side comparison of the current Apple laptop line, including the new bigger iBook. Shame about the resolution, though ...

By their fruits ye shall know them. zsazsa writes: "According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has sued James Hibbits and Michael Webbs, the two founders of Linuxgruven for deceptive business practices. He alleges that interviewers were actually salespeople paid to enroll job applicants in training programs costing up to $3,150."

Would the FSF call Sun "GNU-minded"? maitas writes: "It seems that Sun has removed Solaris for Intel from its free download list. It's really sad to see a company that promotes its 'GNU minded' culture to go back on the few good things it had made. They even removed the Solaris source code from their site! Sad, sad, sad."

That them thar' book larnin' Stardance points to an interview at Salon with Steve Grand, in which the "designer of the artificial life program 'Creatures', talks about the stupidity of computers, the role of desire in intelligence and the coming revolution in what it means to be 'alive.'" You may remember Grand's book Creation: Life & How to Make It, reviewed on these pages. Speaking of reviews, several readers have contributed links to the New York Times' review of Lawrence Lessig's new book.

259 comments

  1. 15 KBs? by cliffy2000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Ouch. That's just wrong. Are they violating their contract somehow?

  2. 15KB... by NetJunkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many cable companies are starting to cap uploads at 128Kb...that's 15KB/sec. And if you think that's only a little faster than dial-up, try again. You can only get 28.8Kb/sec dialup upload.

    I have several friends that have had a 128Kb/sec cap for a long time.

    1. Re:15KB... by djik · · Score: 1

      I have RoadRunner and my upload speed is capped to 50KB/s (that should be about 428kbps) yet the download is not capped, that is I can download stuff at 250KB/s.

    2. Re:15KB... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually 56K modems can upload at 33.6

    3. Re:15KB... by Keith+Mickunas · · Score: 4, Informative

      A little while back AT&T@Home started doing the 128kbps cap in the DFW area. Before that I had managed uploads of around 600kbps if I remember correctly. As NetJunkie pointed out, 15KB is roughly 128Kb so this isn't news and I don't think its worse than most DSL providers. Now AT&T has limited the downstream stuff, but it hasn't really had a noticeable impact on me yet. After all, mine was faster than many servers I went to anyways.

    4. Re:15KB... by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

      My RoadRunner upload is capped at 384Kb/sec (45KB) and the download is 2Mb/sec.

    5. Re:15KB... by alen · · Score: 2

      Most likely to cut down on the hogs using p2p and other file sharing programs.

    6. Re:15KB... by zerosignal · · Score: 1

      The two main cable companies in the UK (NTL and Telewest) have both has an upload limit of 128kbps since they were introduced (the downstream is 512kbps).

      Hopefully, as P2P clients get smarter they will be able to spread load over multiple machines more efficiently so you still get full use of your 512kbps downstream.

    7. Re:15KB... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Mine is also capped at 50KB/s upload and (approx., not quite sure if its officially capped or just physical medium restrictions) have a download cap of 500KB/s. Lucky you. I'm in the Triad (GSO) of North Carolina.

      Anyone know WHY they providers cap differently in different regions? I live in a rural area where cable saturation should not be a problem. ;\

    8. Re:15KB... by Tupper · · Score: 1

      I've shut my cable modem off. I could live with the upload caps--- but if there are going to be caps then dump the rules of service that won't allow webservers, vpns etc. Always on was a feature I like--- but they took away my reasons for liking it.

    9. Re:15KB... by slamb · · Score: 2
      > > My RoadRunner upload is capped at 384Kb/sec (45KB) and the download is 2Mb/sec.

      > Mine is also capped at 50KB/s upload and (approx., not quite sure if its officially capped or just physical medium restrictions) have a download cap of 500KB/s. Lucky you

      Assuming your numbers are correct, your service is faster than his. Pay attention to the case of those letters. Big 'B's are bytes; little 'b's are bits.

      His service: 45KB/s (384Kb/s) up.
      Your service: 50KB/s (400Kb/s) up.

      His service: 256KB/s (2048Kb/s) (2Mb/s) down.
      Your service: 500KB/s (4000Kb/s) (~3.9Mb/s) down.

      With that said, I don't think your numbers are correct. They just don't make sense...his are all "nice" base-2 numbers, which is makes me trust them a lot more. How did you measure? I bet his number for the upload cap is correct and the download is not capped, just dependant on area, connection to the other end, other cable modem users, etc.

    10. Re:15KB... by aka-ed · · Score: 2, Funny

      And faster than that if the v.92 protocols are in use (not much of that yet).

      Still, 128kb is plenty for most "consumer" uses of the Internet. It's a drag for servers, and for filetrading in p2p, ftp and irc. Most users don't care about these issues, and "most users" pay the freight for the high-bandwidth users.

      Face it, folks, you will have to pay cmmercial rates to get commercial-level bandwidth.

      The Usenet cap is even more laughable -- 3 gigabytes for every three days? I wouldn't call that a cap! If you are pulling 30 gigs a month off Usenet, I'd like to know the retail value of the equivalent audio cd's, software, and movies you're downloading. It can't be just pr0n, you'd run yourself raw!

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    11. Re:15KB... by Sharkyfour · · Score: 1

      MusicCity's Morpheous and the others based on the same core software (Kazaa, etc.) can all download one file from more than one machine at once. After a file is queued for download, right click it and select "Find more locations..." or something of that sort, and it will start downloading it from as many different servers as it can find. I don't know about any other P2P services, but I imagine at least some of the others can do the same, especially considering the capability to do that has been in software like GetRight for many years now.

    12. Re:15KB... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you'll still get >300KB downloads. I pay $49 a month for DSL and only get 63KB max. Also upload is always either capped at 90-128Kb. DSL sucks but i have no cable in my area. :-(

    13. Re:15KB... by djik · · Score: 1

      Yep. The RoadRunner service actually caps everything at 2Mbps down and 384 Kbps down. I said I had about 50KB/s due to the fact that I never uploaded really large files, and as you all know the reported speed for small files can be quite strange (Microsoft's Internet Explorer is especially "good" at this).

      PS: I had a SWBell DSL line before getting RoadRunner and the best speed that I've ever got for downloading was about 400Kbps (reported by the PPPoE driver that they gave me) and the highest upload speed was around 128Kbps (again, reported by the same thing).

    14. Re:15KB... by Some+Dumbass... · · Score: 2

      Of course, there's no early-afternoon slowdown with DSL. One of my co-workers complains about this a lot. He loves getting 200K+ most of the time, but when he gets home from work and wants to use the computer, then it's more like 30-40KB/s (versus my steady 60-65K with DSL).

      Also, I seem to recall that ADSL has better ping times than cable, though I'm not sure about that. SDSL sure does, though it's priced for the hardcore gamer only.

      My DSL provider also allows servers, unlike the local cable people (until recently, Cox@Home). I'm paying $52/month total, but I'm pretty happy with my setup.

    15. Re:15KB... by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      Yeah and all those darn new-fangled "web" users. It's almost as bad as those darn auto-locomotive carriages that are all over the damn streets these days.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    16. Re:15KB... by essell · · Score: 1

      Poor guy,

      I really feel for you. "All you can get" is DSL.

      There are some of us still incapable of getting modems to train at 56k because our lines are so shitty.

      --
      i swear my userid used to be lower.
    17. Re:15KB... by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      Try 1500KB down and 128KB up. Some people need to confirm there info here. Also Usenet is up in the air right now nobody know for sure in comcast@home aka comcast HSI

    18. Re:15KB... by DirkGently · · Score: 1

      werd to that

      my connection is even more frustrating. I get 22kbps during the day, but can get the modem to train at 48kbps after 9pm. figure that one out.

      --

      I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.

  3. Perhaps just a misunderstanding by grahamsz · · Score: 3, Redundant

    I have a cable modem in the uk capped at 128kbit/s which in real terms means i can send data at about 15kbytes/s. It's probably just some confusion at their end.

    After all 15kbytes/s would eliminate video conferencing - so what new features could they offer in tv ads?

  4. Upload speeds by DeltaStorm · · Score: 2, Redundant

    The actual speed from AT&T is 128Kb/sec (note the small b) which for most practical terms will come out around 15 KB/sec (large B) depending on network usage.

    --
    .sdrawkcab si gis siht
    1. Re:Upload speeds by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 2

      I've been pleasantly surprised recently.. I'm on ATT broadband and I get a pretty consistent 1500kbps down/250kbps up connection. I am in an ex-mediaone area, so other ATT areas could be different.

      Of course customer support might as well be handled by gorillas with phone scripts.. it's still that bad.

    2. Re:Upload speeds by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

      I just checked and I'm getting 1238Kb down/302Kb up. I'm in the Northwest (the first area to get cut over to attbi.com). I just moved here a few months ago, so I have no idea if there was another service provider here before AT&T or not.

      --
      Just junk food for thought...
    3. Re:Upload speeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm posting this AC because there's some jerk out there modding good comments down.

      Hey, Dumbass, look at when these two very similar were posted -- 7:06 pm!

      Why should they both be modded down for trying to answer the same question? They obviously didn't see that the other was answering the same question at the same time.

      I know karma doesn't equal self worth, but karma does give people mod privildges. I'd rather see these two cats, who provide useful information, being moderators than whatever idiot modded them down. And so off I go to Meta Moderate!

  5. Damn by talonyx · · Score: 1

    Just bought a CD burner, too. I was hoping to make an installation of Solaris for educational purposes.

    Does anybody have the ISO's kicking around? Send me an email if you don't mind sending them to me somehow :D

    1. Re:Damn by malxau · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try my local mirror mirror.aarnet which still had them posted as of this post. Be warned, it's a big monolithic download...but I've got it running on Intel and it works well...

      Not happy, Sun.

    2. Re:Damn by tpurcell · · Score: 1

      For those of you in Texas you can download the ISO's or zips for solaris 8 intel at :
      http://www.crcom.net/~purcell

    3. Re:Damn by aka-ed · · Score: 1
      Just bought a CD burner, too. I was hoping to make an installation of Solaris for educational purposes.

      What makes you think that an upload cap and a cap of a gigabyte per day on Usenet usage, would make this difficult? Are you trying to install it remotely over the Internet?

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    4. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah slashback...multiple topics...nevermind...Ro-Man rules, y'all.

    5. Re:Damn by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Hey! Thanks for posting the broken links pal. You just wasted 30 seconds of my time.

    6. Re:Damn by damiam · · Score: 1

      Read the entire Slashback. It's not all about upload caps.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    7. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think this is? Open source or something? That's copyright infringement and Sun still has many lawyers on the payroll...

    8. Re:Damn by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1

      I have the ISOs, but I've just been clobbered by Comcast, so It would take forever to get the from me.

  6. Sun still has x86 ver of solaris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As of 3am est this mornin, the files where still there for
    download, 3 850 meg iso's.

    1. Re:Sun still has x86 ver of solaris by robertc5 · · Score: 1

      http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/media kit.html

  7. "shame about the resolution though..." by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Er, precisely what sucks about the resolution, for those of us not ``in the know''?

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by whee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The resolution of the 14" iBook is 1024*768 -- the same as the resolution of the 12.1". You're paying more for a bigger laptop with no other real advantage besides not having to squint as much.

    2. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      bigger screen, same 1024 x 768.

    3. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Lordie · · Score: 1

      The 500Mhz iBook has a 12.1"-ish screen with a resolution of 1024x768. The new 600Mhz iBook has a 14.1"-ish screen with a resolution of 1024x768. Same pixel depth, you just have your choice on how big you want your pixels, I guess :)

    4. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by j+h+woodyatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      The larger one has a different battery, i.e. one with 8 cells instead of 6. So Apple is saying the 14" iBook can give you six hours of OS X on a single charge, instead of five... It's also 1 lb heavier.

      And, dude-- it's not like the old iBook is no longer for sale, or anything stupid like that. What are you complaining about? Too many choices?

      --
      jhw
    5. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Taloon · · Score: 0

      The max resolution is 1024x768. I'm quite happy with it on my 12" iBook, but raising the resolution on the 14" model could've canniblized sales of the TiBook, and also using a higher quality screen would've raised the price out of the range of a "consumer model".

      Also, those who found 1152 on a 14" screen to hard on the eyes, would've had to use a non-native resolution. Granted, I have bad eyes, but anything above 1024 on my old 15" CRT was a pain. So others may have the same problem.

      The main gripe seems to be the lack of video mirroring, which means that when you hook the iBook up to an external monitor, it can't act as having dual displays, so the resolution is limited to 1024. Not really a feature the target audience really needs, but even a geek like myself is happy with 1024 at 19", using it as my main machine, replacing a P3 600. All the other features and the nice price really offset any limitations it has IMHO.

    6. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The main gripe seems to be the lack of video mirroring, which means that when you hook the iBook up to an external monitor, it can't act as having dual displays.

      The iBook has video mirroring, which is when the external monitor shows the same thing as the LCD. What it's missing is multihead.

    7. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by BlackGriffen · · Score: 5, Funny

      You should be greatful for that 1024*768! Why, I got a blue iBook with a 12" screen and 800*600. You youngans are such ingrates! Why, I'd step over my own mother to get two more inches and another step of res! Sides, if ya don't like tha bigga screen, you can still buy the smaller one, ya cheap bastard.

      And another thing, when I was young...

      ;)

      BlackGriffen

    8. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude? Have you ever really tried to use 1024x768 on a 12-inch monitor say, vs. a 14, and say, vs. a 17 incher? Do you really realize just how much "not squinting" means to the poor s.o.b. who's too poor for a TiBook but needs to stare at a screen all day?

    9. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Soong · · Score: 1

      Apple quietly notes that the bigger case has a bigger battery and a rated extra hour (6 instead of 5) of run time over the smaller model.

      Aside from that, I want pixels! but I suppose a few people will like seeing things a little bigger.

      It'd be really cool if in 3-5 months apple rev'd this model with a new screen...

      --
      Start Running Better Polls
    10. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why, I'd step over my own mother to get two more inches

      I bet your mother would be happy to see you get two more inches.

    11. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Can I get one will all three mouse buttons
      intact? I'll dump this presario for an
      ibook if i can upgrade from 2 buttons to the
      full 3.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    12. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Thatman311 · · Score: 0

      Quit your bitching. Buy the PowerBook Titanium if you want more pixels. Besides it had a a 16:9 aspect ratio which is REALLY freaking cool.

      --
      Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
    13. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, for the rest of the laptop industry, Larger + Heavier + Same Features = Cheaper.

      Apple is charging $300 more than the lightweight models. Bizarre.

    14. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by singularity · · Score: 1

      According to http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ , the combo drive is also faster, at 8x8x8x24x (CD-R/CD-RW/DVD/CD-ROM), compared to 4x4x6x24x for the older one.

      So there are a few more differences, as well.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    15. Re:"shame about the resolution though..." by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1

      Pah, I dunno. My Toshiba Libretto has 640x480. I would have worked 25 hours a day and got up before I went to bed for 800x600.

  8. linuxgruven by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I once followed up on an ad that turned out to relate to Linuxgruven and their phony classes-for-jobs scam. Although I feel bad if anybody did get defrauded, I have to say it sounded pretty fishy to me when I talked to them on the phone.

    The person who answered worked for an "answering service" that could only take your name and a time for you to drive in to their super-inconveniently located "interview center". They knew absolutely nothing.

    Anybody who would give these people money sort of deserves what they get, because they're fairly obvious about being a scam where you aren't getting a job.

    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:linuxgruven by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      Maybe when you told them your name was "Karl Cocknozzle", they thought you were just a prank phone caller and tried to get rid of you? Just a thought...

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
    2. Re:linuxgruven by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Hehe, It's funny, my former coworker left a Linuxgruven bumper stuck on the wall in my office. It's still up there.

      I always just thought it was a joke like those Farfrompukin T-Shirts that were available a while back. Really!

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:linuxgruven by skinnymofo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I interviewed with Linuxgruven and took their 'skills assessment' test. Everything was a bunch of shit.
      The burned-out 40 year old dude interviewing me didn't know much about computers or Linux beyond his cheat sheet (sitting out in front of him during the interview). Shit, he didn't even have his computer turned on.
      The skills assessment 'required' to be hired asked questions like 'What does WWW stand for?'.

      But, I'm not gonna lie, they had me hooked initially, with their spoutings about the pay and the job description. Come on, at 19, who wouldn't want to get paid to work with Linux?

      _

      --
      Happiness is like peeing yourself, only you can feel the warmth.
    4. Re:linuxgruven by ProzacGod · · Score: 1

      I was scammed, to be honest I really still wished I could be working in a linux admin. position what happened I showed up for school, and no teachers were there. I was angry, upset and P.O.'ed. I think I was the first to call hibits, on his cell phone. He picked up on the second ring. I can't remember what I said, but he made out like it was all a hiccup to be settled in a week or so. (maybe it was his plan to leave the country in a week and it would be a hiccup to him) so I was scammed only the truth is I didn't get scammed for as much.. they gave me the deal of 1500$ to start the class and 1500$ outta your paychecks... think about that the truth is I was paying them for my first few weeks of work! oh well. life goes on. I'm working at a software company convincing them of all the golden uses of Linux. I even setup thier firewall :) So I have a mild experience administering Linux, anyone gonna hire me? I was in LinuxGruven for 2 weeks, I should be quallified for.. i dunno .. janitor?

    5. Re:linuxgruven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody deserves to get ripped off.
      Except for maybe people with that attitude.
      I hope you get what you deserve...

  9. iBooks by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

    It is nice to see that Apple did not use a larger keyboard for the 14.1" iBook in comparison to the 12.1" version. This should help to keep the costs down, which is a bonus.

    Does anybody know if the extra room inside can be utilized in some manner not forseen by Apple?

    Does the larger iBook run at a lower temperature, hene making it a better candidate for overclocking?

    1. Re:iBooks by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 1
      Does anybody know if the extra room inside can be utilized in some manner not forseen by Apple?
      The extra room is indeed already used by Apple - for a larger battery, which offers even more working time than the smaller iBook!
  10. Sad by cube00 · · Score: 1

    Its sad to see so many companies missusing their monopoly. I mean come on, Capping DSL to 15KB/s? what the heck is that..

    Also sad to see Sun removing their stuff from their site, I wonder why they did it.. ?

  11. It is sort of useless for Sun to remove... by AnimeFreak · · Score: 2

    ...the x86 version of Solaris as well as the sourcecode.

    Why?

    Because they both have been availble for well over a year now (I have Solaris 8 x86 already burned on to a CDR) and taking them offline will not prevent it from being distributed even further.

    1. Re:It is sort of useless for Sun to remove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're probably tired of having to pay for the bandwidth required to distribute it. I grabbed it last week (or the week before) at a steady 1mbps. Nice and fast but it's not cheap to provide that kind of bandwidth to freeloaders.

    2. Re:It is sort of useless for Sun to remove... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sun isn't removing the source code or binary images of solaris in order to prevent dissemination - they aren't that stupid. Sun has deferred until some unspecified date the release of solaris 9 for intel architecture, and apparently there are people within Sun who think it is a waste of bandwidth to make what is still available freely downloadable.

  12. Usenet is still accessible I think... by ekrout · · Score: 3, Interesting
    More news you can use on the @home front. Anubis333 writes: "After a while talking with customer support, I have learned that Comcast@Home (Soon to be ATT Broadband) has instituted a network-wide cap on user upload to 15KB! (Thats not much more than dialup) Also, they have now capped Usenet news access. What am I paying 50 dollars a month for again? More info on usenet here.

    Try using Google Groups. Free USENET reading and posting...

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    1. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ogres have capped Usenet access to 3GB per 3 days. Anyone using that much bandwidth is downloading massive amounts of warez/mp3s/porn - none of which are available from google's usenet feeds.

    2. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      I think the point was that they want to use the binaries groups.

      Of course they can read and post text messages... even if they cap it.

      And why should they limit the ability of this service? This is like selling a car with a potato up the tailpipe.

    3. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      I think it's more like selling a family car that can "only" do 160kms an hour....

      in other words, more than anyone should ever need, and if they need more, maybe they should look somewhere else....

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    4. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      Well, I guess 'acceptable usage' is defined by what ONE SPECIAL PREDEFINED user will use, and not what the user can use.

      Simply, it is defeating the purpose of BB access.

      I guess, even legit binary groups are out. There are plenty of groups which deal with trading your OWN art. Bryce works etc....

      look at the groups, it's not all newbie/help questions, pr0n and warez.

    5. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by ChazeFroy · · Score: 2

      Ameritech DSL used to have uncapped access to Usenet, but when SBC took over the reigns they limited Usenet access (up and down) to 128k.

    6. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by aka-ed · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess 'acceptable usage' is defined by what ONE SPECIAL PREDEFINED user will use, and not what the user can use.

      Simply, it is defeating the purpose of BB access.

      I guess, even legit binary groups are out. There are plenty of groups which deal with trading your OWN art. Bryce works etc....

      We're talking about a 3 gigabyte per 3 day cap. That is a gigabyte per day.

      For whom is 1GB/day not well beyond "acceptable?"

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    7. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by Grab · · Score: 2

      Spot on. Shame I don't have mod points...

      Grab.

    8. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't carry the goods...
      alt.binaries.*

    9. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      What we are talking about is what I will use, not what you use.

      That is the point... 1 GB... who needs that? 640K... who needs more?

    10. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by aka-ed · · Score: 1

      Defining what is acceptable as "whatever I want?" I know why 640kb is an outmoded limit, and I paid for my 512MB of memory. Name one sane reason why a consumer service is obligated to provide 30 gigs of usenet to you, in addition to the connection that you are paying for, at no additional cost to you? If I invited you to dinner, how long would it take you to clear out my refridgerator?

      Grow up and learn to pay for what you want. Why should the 99.99% who have no use or need for 30 gigs/mo. pay for your obsessive-compulsive pr0n/warez/media addiction?

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    11. Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      We're talking about a 3 gigabyte per 3 day cap. That is a gigabyte per day.

      For whom is 1GB/day not well beyond "acceptable?"


      Me, for one. I am archiving all of USENET in hopes of future Salon/Google Glory. I just hope the U-Store-It where I'm stuffing all my Hard Drives never burns down.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  13. Caps by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The upload cap sucks, but I have to say - 3GB per 3 days of USENET is not unreasonable. If you subscribe to a PAY USENET service, there's still a cap on downloads for a set time period. People leech warez and porn off USENET all day, and your ISP (or other provider) can't support that without imposing some sort of limitation. A typical pay service is $10/month and lets you download say, 8GB a month such as newshosting.com.

    1. Re:Caps by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not unreasonable?

      Why should anyone pay for USENET service when it's included with the service? Simply don't offer it, offer text only services and advertise that, or sell USENET extra. But for god sakes drop the price of the overall service. For $50 a month, they should guarantee great server retention. $50 is too much for cable, considering other providers offer no-cap, for $10 less.

      But cable providers are special. If they were smart they would have the news server local relative to the customers. There is no reason ATT or even AOL and the rest can't set up a local news server. They have the lines.

      If the server is local, they don't share the server between cities - cutting down the load. They also save $ on bandwidth considering the server is only a few hops away, those hops being within the same building.

      And when it comes to warez or porn... whose business is it what they are doing? What if I want to take a daily backup of alt.religion.scientology? or even alt.religion.* ? Maybe I'm a linux enthusiast and want to archive comp.os.linux.* ? Or even alt.linux.sucks.?

      Maybe they want to download them all [mentioned above]. It shouldn't matter.

      It would be like saying... "you get this open, fast, connection. We will provide a news server somewhere within our own net. But you can download more on IRC, Napster, the web and FTP sites... you're welcome"

    2. Re:Caps by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      $50 is too much for cable.


      Damn, as good ol' Fred Dagg would say, you don't know how lucky you are ! Here in New Zealand we only have one cable supplier, infact, only avery small portion of the country has cable, the supplier is in the process of the roll out now.

      Anyway, I am lucky enough to have cable in my street, and through that cable I get my whizzy fast internet connection.

      But the company's accounts are so lame-o that I only get 256kbps down, 128kbps (that's a small b, bits not bytes) up, only 5g of traffic/month, no option to increase the traffic.

      Because of the crusty 5g/month I have two installs, that's 2 cable modems, 2 accounts, 2 bills etc to give me an effective 10g a month, which I am really pushing. For more than $50US/month.

      If I go over the 5g on either account it's gonna cost me about $0.10US PER MEG for international (outside of NZ, which is pretty much everything) traffic.

      I'd really like to run ftp server etc to share divx episodes of scifi shows. But at that I can not anywhere near afford it ! It's as much as I can do to restrit my downloading to 10g/month.

      On top of all that the connection is flakey as hell, a friend has started logging downtime, he started this morning, and is already up to about an hour ! I'm gonna do the same so we can compare.

      So to all you whingers who think that you should be getting fast upload, fast download, flat rate broadband for your $50US/month, spare a thought for we poor souls in countries where that is a mere pipe-dream.
      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    3. Re:Caps by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      Ahh replying to myself - I mis-read my friends stats. Not an hour of downtime, but 5 connection drops in the last 20 hours or so. Which if you ask me is quite excessive.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    4. Re:Caps by RC514 · · Score: 1

      So the bandwith hogs pay some external usenet provider to stop using internal bandwith and start using external bandwith. Most access providers are trying to get the huge bandwith eating servers as close to the users as possible. Capping use of your own internal servers doesn't look like an intelligent move to me...

      --

    5. Re:Caps by CaptainSuperBoy · · Score: 2

      I do have a local news server, and I am on ATT broadband. It's news.ne.mediaone.net. It sucks. It keeps messages for about a day, it drops messages, and it's slow. That doesn't prove anything, just responding to your point about local news.

    6. Re:Caps by aka-ed · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why should anyone pay for USENET service when it's included with the service? Simply don't offer it, offer text only services and advertise that, or sell USENET extra.

      Please adjust to the realities of bandwidth cost. Here's one of the more reasonable pricelists for pure Usenet usage. They charge $44.95 for one month of Usenet. Bring your own connection.

      You may not like getting a gig a day of Usenet at no extra charge to your broadband, but I like it...I also subscribe to EZNews, but I only have to pay them for 6 gigs a month, cause I get most of my filez from my ISP's server.

      When an ISP gives you webspace, they don't hand you your own server. What an ISP "owes" its users is defined by the market (what the competition offers, what is affordable/profitable, etcetera), not your concept of what is appropriate.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    7. Re:Caps by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Indirectly related to this, Genuity has begun to cap Earthlink DSL lines in the NYC area. Prior to this you could (if close) get near 1.5 Mbps down and 300+ Kbps up. But apparently part of the contract between Earthlink and Genuity allows Genuity to cap lines at their discretion and they have cut customers down to 768/128. Gee.. couldnt be because Verizon owns Genuity?

    8. Re:Caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amend that -- $44.95 is the rate that is equivalent to the "capped" service, 31 gigs in a month. Ro-Man rules, y'all

    9. Re: Caps by hrath · · Score: 1

      Hmm, looks a bit expensive. At http://www.newsfeeds.com you can get 9.25 Gigabyte/Day for $19.95 or $13.3 if you pay yearly in advance. This should be more than enough even for the most hardcore leechers.

    10. Re:Caps by Knightmare · · Score: 1

      How about this. If you don't like the pricing for the available service, dont use it. Companies listen to their wallets not their customers groaning on slashdot. I personally don't see how $50 is too much for cable. What other service for that price offers that DOWNSTREAM capacity. If you want to upload large amounts of things either get sdsl or a T1.
      And it doesn't matter what newsgroup you are interested in archiving, if it is 3 gigs it's 3 gigs no matter what... 3 megs of porn is the same as 3 megs of linux archives... It's the server resources that are the problem.

    11. Re:Caps by ianaverage · · Score: 1
      -- $50 is too much for cable

      Just remember that @Home is having serious $$ issues. I understand that other services (DSL) might offer more for the same price, but how can cable get cheaper if they are already having serious financial issues?

    12. Re:Caps by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      When you pay for access... it's all covered. USENET, web, ftp... no matter what you are using. Localized servers however aren't paying for bandwidth for every user... they pay once, store and you download from them. That is the reason they use a local usenet server and not a huge national center server.

      They aren't paying for what comes over the cable line... they own that. They don't charge you if you watch to much tv a month. [i should have pointed this out earlier].

      I've got digital cable, with HBO on demand... 10 bucks / month and if you watch 'too much' it doesn't go up in price or get cut off. BECAUSE IT'S HOSTED RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD. The data comes over their non-public, non-internet lines. We aren't talkin' T1's or anything.

      What they 'owe' you is what they advertise. At least this is known up front [or for us anyways]. The problem is they are setting the market up for these caps, not going with the norm.

    13. Re:Caps by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      How about this. If you don't like the pricing for the available service, dont use it.

      Trust me, I won't.

      Companies listen to their wallets not their customers groaning on slashdot.

      Well, when the customers run like rats on a sinking shit their wallets will let them know. I don't post this stuff hoping they will read this and realize they are stupid... it's a discussion between nerds, not ISP's.

      And it doesn't matter what newsgroup you are interested in archiving, if it is 3 gigs it's 3 gigs no matter what... 3 megs of porn is the same as 3 megs of linux archives... It's the server resources that are the problem.

      Exactly my point. But they don't have much to complain about when the news server sits right next to the DHCP server and mail server. [a few miles from your house]. Does anyone here really know how a news server works?

      The point is, they can't very well monitor all your bandwidth usage. I've uploaded 3 gigs over IRC in ONE DAY. Now this is traffic leaving the network! If they said, 3 gigs of web usage or ftp usage in three days... it would be a privacy issue.

      The point is, it's their server. In their network. Ideally it's in your city, with the data coming ONLY over your cable line. It costs them nothing to run stuff over the line. They don't limit how much TV you can watch right?

      If they only want to retain messages for a day or even a few hours... fine. That is server resources.

      If all the customers are using USENET this much... wouldn't it make sense to upgrade and make them happy rather than sending them to DSL or other forms of broadband?

    14. Re:Caps by aka-ed · · Score: 1

      Putting aside your belief that bandwidth from the head-end to your house is free and non-system affecting, I've got two words for you: server capacity. If you're demanding a gig a day from your ISP's servers, the ISP is carrying you at a loss, and other people are paying for your services. That's why the cap. Do you suppose they are just doing this to piss you off?

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    15. Re:Caps by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      When you pay for access... it's all covered. USENET, web, ftp... no matter what you are using.

      No. When you pay for service, whatever the person or company providing that service chooses to offer is what is "covered".

      Unless your contract with them said "absolutely no restrictions whatsoever, and this contract cannot be changed at any time by either party", you don't have a case here. You signed an agreement that, I'm willing to bet, said there were certain restrictions, and that either these restrictions or the entire contract could be changed.

      If you don't like it, don't get your service from them. And don't pull the "but there's no other access in my area" bullshit; you can go get yourself a T1 and do whatever the hell you please with it.

      But before you say "that's too expensive", remember that the people giving you that cheap broadband connection are paying a much higher rate to transport your packets out to the Internet, and they have an absolute right to make however much profit they want on this transaction, because you are using their resources to purchase what is a LUXURY, not a necessity.

      If you don't think they're doing business properly, go start your own.

      The problem is they are setting the market up for these caps, not going with the norm.

      EVERYBODY has some kind of restrictions on bandwidth or usage. EVERYBODY. Even the backbone providers. The "norm" is all over the map on this. Show me some statistical data proving your "norm" claims are the mean and I'll pay attention, but until then, this is just whining for a freebie.

  14. @home policy says... by j_d · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Excite@Home is implementing a byte-cap on the Usenet service that will limit subscribers to 3GB of Usenet content over any three day window. The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) has been revised to reflect the change in Usenet usage policy.

    You goddamn cretins. There may be some kind of 15k limit, but I don't see it. The page you reference has the quote above in it -- if you can restrain yourself to a GODDAMN GIG A DAY maybe you can 'survive'.
    1. Re:@home policy says... by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

      uhh.... maybe you use your internet for email, AOL IM and a random stupid /. post, but i use it for many file and web servers that run my business.

      I send out (upload) over 8 GIGS of data a day. My company pays $89 a month for my service. If they cap it (not let me use network access i pay for) they are handicapping my ability to run a business.

      and that GODDAMN would be a GODDAMN problem for me.

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    2. Re:@home policy says... by NextGen · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong since I haven't had @Home for a while but isn't there a line in their TOS that says that you can't run servers -- including or specifically business servers on @Home's residential cable modem service. I assume that the @Work (or whatever they call it) would not have this same upload limitation.

      I would check your TOS again. They can't be held liable for "handicapping [your] ability to run a business" if you are breaking their TOS.

    3. Re:@home policy says... by elmegil · · Score: 1
      You're using a HOME user ISP (uh...@home?? ya know??) for business purposes, and you complain that now you can't use it for business purposes? Maybe you should have invested in a BUSINESS ISP, eh?

      "For my next trick, I'll be whining that AOL won't let me run pr0n sites over my dialup."

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    4. Re:@home policy says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post was a bit slim on the details. If the guy actually connected to a remote server and transfered data to THAT daemon (still the same 8GB) he would not be violating his TOS. If they were (let's just say they did) limit this, what would they be offering anymore? Not video conferencing or anything else that is associated with broadband (video streaming in general for that matter would be horrible) and gaming isnt exactly a huge selling point to the mainstream public (ie. excluding every teenager that has control of the services at home).

      But then again, if he is running a business off his home cable connection that would be a bit of a violation ;)

    5. Re:@home policy says... by vicviper · · Score: 1
      I may be wrong since I haven't had @Home for a while but isn't there a line in their TOS that says that you can't run servers -- including or specifically business servers on @Home's residential cable modem service. I assume that the @Work (or whatever they call it) would not have this same upload limitation. I would check your TOS again. They can't be held liable for "handicapping [your] ability to run a business" if you are breaking their TOS.

      I just got called from comcast today to inform me of the @home -> comcastonline switch over. In my mad rush to find out if I'd retain my static IP, I learned that comacast@work won't even let you run a webserver... sheesh.

    6. Re:@home policy says... by NextGen · · Score: 1

      This is meant with good intentions:

      Actually, according to @Home it is a violation:

      From @Home's AUP or here:

      "@Home residential customers may not resell, share, or otherwise distribute the Services or any portion thereof to any third party without the written consent of @Home. For example, you cannot provide Internet access to others through a dial up connection, host shell accounts over the Internet, provide email or news service, or send a news feed. You may not use the @Home residential service for commercial purposes. The @Home residential service offering is a consumer product designed for your personal use of the Internet. For example, the service does not provide the type of security, upstream performance and total downstream throughput capability typically associated with commercial use."


      Their AUP is so openended in this manner that it can be construed to say that he is violating the AUP anyway. Oh well, such is big business...

    7. Re:@home policy says... by aka-ed · · Score: 1

      The guy says he's paying $89 a month. That is about $40 more than AT&T's consumer service. This is not referring to him.

      Plus, he stresses that he's moving 8 gigabytes of data a day, as if he thinks that the usenet cap of a gig a day somehow is related to that.

      It looks from here like he's just all confused.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    8. Re:@home policy says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You send out over 8 gigs of data a day and you pay for a measily cable internet connection for your business? You deserve to be capped. Your trying to get as much as possible for next to nothing and it is a miracle it has been allowed to continue this long. Your company pays $89 a month for service. What a joke. Do you have any idea how idiotic what you have just said is? Any idea at all? People need to stop expecting something for next to nothing. To build these networks to support these demands is not cheap and to expect to pay a PATHETIC $89 a month for transfers that include over 8 gigs a day? You should be paying $89 a day joker.

    9. Re:@home policy says... by j_d · · Score: 1


      I send out (upload) over 8 GIGS of data a day. My company pays $89 a month for my service. If they cap it (not let me use network access i pay for) they are handicapping my ability to run a business.

      and that GODDAMN would be a GODDAMN problem for me.

      Do you really send 8 gigs via NNTP for you company? Through @Home? Despite being a violation of their AUP?


      Is that you, Bernie?

  15. Anti-Norn by Alien54 · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    The Salon interview is alot easier to read in printer friendly mode

    That said, the site to torture the creaures mentioned in the interview will amuse some folks

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  16. 15KB =~ 128Kb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The part where timothy mentions that the upload cap will eventually be set to 128 KB was likely supposed to be 128 KB, which is close to the 15 KB they're already set out. In other words, its not changing.

  17. Wah... by xonker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, the upload cap is something to bitch about, but whining about a 3GB download cap for news over a 3 day period? Puh-leez.

    If you're downloading more than 3GB of pr0n over three days, you have some serious issues...

    I'm quite happy to see that the Linuxgruven bastards are being sued, though. They screwed over a good friend of mine, and I hope they get nailed to the wall for it. Took 'em long enough, though...

    1. Re:Wah... by LWolenczak · · Score: 1

      Well I allready knew my boss had some serious issues...... when I started finding three gigs of porn here, four gigs of porn there, i told him to just get rid of it off the servers. At that point, he started buying a bunch of 60-70 gig drives......

  18. I have @Home by gmplague · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have Comcast@Home, and I've been uploading at a "staggering" 80KB/sec (yeah, 640kbps). I'm on their new network too. Maybe this applies to customers still on the old excite network, because comcast doesn't want to pay for all that extra band on someone else's network. Just wait 'til you're on their new network, then we'll see.

    --
    __________________________________________
    Take comfort in your ignorance.
    Grandmaster Plague
    1. Re:I have @Home by JoshMKiV · · Score: 1

      Just ran a test, upload speed: 14.95Kbytes (not bits).

  19. Dialup Woes by Renraku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm on dial-up. You people complain about 128k being all evil and bad, and thats just your upload cap! Think about us who get the run around from every broadband provider we go to, being capped at like 40k.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Dialup Woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats irrelevant to say the least. If you were in our boat (which youre not) you'd be pissed too. You could be paying 1/4th of the price for approx 1/4th of the speed (consider the cost of having a HA modem pool at your ISP; that cant be cheap). Besides initial roll-out of broadband, it really must be cheaper to run than dialup. Then they go and advertise these wonderful speeds that anyone would love then go back on their users.

      Why has no one considered to file a false advertisement claim against these companies?

    2. Re:Dialup Woes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Luxembourg, Europe we pay € 300/month and the modem costs us 250 - how much do you pay for 56K access? IMHO, such high prices should allow us to connect without restrictions

  20. That incredibly sucks!!! by datm · · Score: 0

    Because I use SSHTelnet to retrieve files from Comcast's @ Home service my downloads from work have crawled to 3k sec. That really stinks! Comcast NEEDs to fix this soon. Also, 150K is still not fast enough.

    --
    Datm
  21. Caps? by The+Great+Wakka · · Score: 1

    Caps:
    What advantage does this have to the business? It seems to mostly be a method of sharing the bandwith fairly.

    Solaris, Gone:
    Eef. And does the article writer mean x86? But seriously, the only open-source (to a degree) OS that Microsoft took seriously... gone from the free list. Wonder what impact this'll have on Sun. Seems shortsighted.

    --
    Everything is mainstream now.
    1. Re:Caps? by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      Well - A paranoid sort would see that the upload BW cap would KILL file sharing like gnutella (if it were universally applied). A paranoid sort would then extrapolate to external RIAA types reminding the broadband providers how much they would save by limiting the uploads.

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    2. Re:Caps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      advantage = they pay monthly to their upstream providers/co-op providers for a certain amount of upstream and certain amount of downstream traffic. more caps = more profits. it's all greed.

    3. Re:Caps? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You think the leased lines that feed your cable modem are free?

      You can't pay less than $50 a month and expect T1 grade service that costs 20 times more. Now, as to why it costs 20 times more, ask the de facto telco monopolies.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Caps? by aka-ed · · Score: 1
      A paranoid sort would see that the upload BW cap would KILL file sharing like gnutella

      And would be wrong, unless the cap is made somewhat lower. With a 128 cap, a 128kbps mp3 theoretically would stream/download in real time, especially after a few seconds for buffering. Plus, next-gen clients should be able to combine the bandwidth of 2 machines with identical files to effectively double download speed. So, at least for mp3's the download cap would be an annoyance, not doom. Movies and such are another matter.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
  22. Solaris for Intel by jonestor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe this is the first sign that they are planning on dropping the intel version completely.

    1. Re:Solaris for Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is the first sign they have remembered that businesses are supposed to sell things, not give them away.

  23. You're getting what you're paying for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just exactly how much bandwidth you you think $50 is worth? Ever priced a T1 even from a shitty provider (Broadwing) they're over $700/mo with local loop things are even more expensive is you live in a remote area. Besides for $50 you are getting nearly a DS3 (I've seen peaks of 500k/sec on my cable modem) worth of download speed, especially from those local @Home usenet servers. Quit your bitching and thank god you have broadband at all.

    1. Re:You're getting what you're paying for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fair point. But why is it skewed so far in one direction? The disparity between the send and receive speeds is peculiar. What justification is there?

      The truth, of course, is that they don't want people running servers. It's even in the TOS. But is there any legitimate reason for them to want that? I can't think of one. Maybe someone else can?

  24. Binaries Re:Usenet is still accessible I think... by foonf · · Score: 2, Informative
    Try using Google Groups [google.com]. Free USENET reading and posting...


    I think the caps are probably aimed mainly at posting, and particularly to curb binary posting.

    Earthlink's news server, for instance, while allowing uncapped downloads, has an undocumented daily post limit of around 60 (in my experience). Now I have never needed to post 60 real discussion messages. But with standard chunk size (10000 lines), the cap makes posting any large binaries virtually impossible.

    Of course, Google does not carry alt.binaries at all. So in effect these people, like many others, are going to be forced to fork over another 10 bucks a month to a third party news provider to continue their alt.binaries addiction.
    --

    "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
  25. Am I missing something? by dz79 · · Score: 0

    Where is the "animation" story in this slashback's subject?

  26. Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by foonf · · Score: 5, Informative

    There will be no Intel version of Solaris 9. It is, in effect, a dead program. There's no reason for them to continue to provide it for download if it is going to be completely dropped momentarily. Soon enough it will no longer be for sale to commercial users.

    And as for the source code...haven't they tried taking it down a couple times already? Probably if they get enough flame mail they will put it back up and try to claim it was a "mistake".

    --

    "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
    1. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I didn't know that Solaris 9 wouldn't have an Intel version. I'm actually rather glad this will be taking place, as every single person I've ever talked to who installed Solaris/x86 was a linux newbie who typically wanted to get as many operating systems on his hard drive as possible. This resulted in so, so many frequently-asked questions (files dns in /etc/resolv.conf anyone?) Never have I seen a Solaris/x86 installation used for real work, although I'm sure they're out there. Serious Solaris users will always get the media kit anyway, so the removal of the burnable download link will have a minimal impact.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by leeward · · Score: 1

      I used Solaris X86 quite a lot when I worked at NASA a few years ago. We had lots of Sparcs around, but getting a purchase of a Sparc approved was a lot more of a hassle than a PC. Many people there, including me, bought PCs and installed Solaris. It worked superbly, and I had high hopes for it at the time. If it really does die, I for one will be sad to see it go.

      Another project that I recently subcontracted on and was shipped last week also operates on Solaris X86 (chosen by them, not me), but all of it will also operate on Linux if it comes to that (which it sounds like may come to pass).

    3. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by rfsayre · · Score: 2

      Blade 100s are cheap anyway.

    4. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by Gaetano · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you got this idea from.

      Here is a list of supported hardware I just got off Sun's early access page titled "Solaris 9 (Intel Platform Edition) Hardware Compatility List"

      Intel Pentium,Intel Pentium Pro,Intel Pentium with MMX,Intel Pentium II,Intel Pentium II Xeon,Intel Celeron,Intel Pentium III,Intel Pentium III Xeon, Intel Pentium 4, AMD-K5, AMD-K6, AMD-K6-2, AMD-K6-3, AMD Athlon (formerly Athlon K7), AMD Duron

      Maybe you have more information than I do but it sounds like they are planning on having a Solaris 9 for Intel to me.

    5. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, I know more about the contents of the /etc directory in Solaris than Linux.. Why? Because I actually have to go in there to do stuff unlike Linux that has 50000 utilities to do everything for you.

    6. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This resulted in so, so many frequently-asked questions (files dns in /etc/resolv.conf anyone?)



      Maybe you should read one of those FAQ's...you put the dns service in nsswitch.conf, not in resolv.conf. BTW, if you use Solaris 8 (maybe even one of the maint. releases of 7) DNS servers can be entered during the install, just like in Linux.

    7. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by MaxQuordlepleen · · Score: 1

      Never have I seen a Solaris/x86 installation used for real work, although I'm sure they're out there.

      our Netra X1s don't have CD-Rom drives, and we use a Solaris/x86 machine as an install server...

    8. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by flaxster1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "We retain the option to do (Solaris on Intel) in the future," said Graham Lovell, Sun's director of Solaris product marketing. "But given where we are with the economy, we'd rather focus on our bottom line and make sure we spend our money wisely. We'd rather defer Solaris on Intel to a later date." from cnet news

    9. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by moonbeam · · Score: 1

      Although I agree that it is sad that Sun has dropped soloris for the intel processor, I think that it is "A good thing" that they contentrate their efforts toward open source projects in their mainstream soloris sparc product line. This makes stronger the corporate acceptance of the open source paradymns and projects that are now "standard" features in solaris. The lack of "vendor supplied" open source features has been a major roadblock for the open source acceptance in the corporate environment. On my sparc at work, I can now run an apache web server and many other woderful programs I use at home on my linux box via the soraris /opt/sfw soloaris installation option. Soon Sun will drop thier development and support for cde desktop and replace it with gnome.
      By this action, I see that Sun is just concentrating their efforts and doing thier best to promoting open source for solaris.

      --
      ---- perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(1 15),10);'
    10. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by leandrod · · Score: 2

      Sun is already missing the opportunity of "doing their best to promote open source for Solaris" by not releasing it under the GPL.

      It does not make sense to try to compete against GPL'd software in an open standards environment.

      There was a propose for that, if memory doesn't fail me it was by Bill Joy around 1.994, before GNU/Linux became too popular to be overcomed... that could have not only advanced the free software movement but also gained a much more visible situation for Sun Solaris, sold gobs of Sun Sparc machines, and prevented Microsoft Windows NT advances in market~ and mindshare.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
    11. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, gawd yes, UNIX on x86 is a history of lost opportunities.

      Besides Solaris x86, which used to sell for $2000 or something, Novell bought the whole SVR4 franchise in the mid-90s. After promising to release it as the "NT Killer" codenamed "SuperNOS" , they promptly buried it, only to sell it to SCO years later for pennies on the dollar. NT proceed to eat Novell's 80% marketshare in record time, mainly because of applicaiton support. (NetWare didn't even have protected memory at the time!)

      With friends like these in the big UNIX camp, it's no wonder that Linux got popular!

    12. Re:Solaris/Intel has been EOL'd already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Doh. My mistake. Boy I feel stupid.

      --DNS-and-BIND

  27. @Home service by interiot · · Score: 2
    As others have said, the caps aren't new or don't matter. But... the quality of service I'm getting has done down the toilet in the past month or two. It used to be completely lag-free 97% of the time. That's dropped to about 55%. And it's almost unusable even for telnet 10% of the time. Hopefully this is temporary and will be cleared up once my provider (Insight Comm) switches off of Excite and on to AT&T's network.

    I fear that the contract renegotiations have resulted in less money being spent on upkeep, and that either prices will go up, or quality will go down.

    1. Re:@Home service by Slowping · · Score: 1

      I must agree that the network performance has been terrible. I am in the Seattle area, and was on the Excite network.

      On the other hand, I haven't gotten a bill for my cable modem in over 2 months now! Hmmm... makes me wonder.... and nervous...

      --
      (\(\
      (^.^)
      (")")
      *beware the cute-bunny virus
    2. Re:@Home service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please don't steal. The government hates competition.

      Please don't troll or make lame jokes. Slowping hates competition.

  28. Resolution? by Howie · · Score: 0, Troll

    Shame about the resolution, though ...

    Just how much resolution do you need to see that one is bigger than the other? An independent size-reference (like a CD, for instance) in the pictures would have been useful - not at a higher resolution though.

    --
    "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
  29. The future... by gilbertt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's amusing is all the coverage of super-high bandwidth connections to ISPs, especially all the "last-mile" advances and the potential to plug users into the net at 10Mbps+.

    Why are they bothering when it's clear their networks can't handle even current traffic levels? And who would elect to pay for a 10Mbps+ connection if they're gonna get capped to a tenth of that within 3 months of signing up?

    What exactly is going to change when 10Mbps ISP connections are available?

  30. No wonder people are forced to use windows... by curunir · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I have my iBook, but the resolution is too low, so I thought I'd get a PC laptop, but I don't want windows on it, so I'm thinking...Linux...that's the way to go, problem is when I go to take a class, I get defrauded, so now I'm thinking...Solaris Intel...that'll solve all my problems, so I go to download it and wouldn't you know sun removed it from their website, but that's ok cause I got this friend who has an ISO on his box at home and says I can download it, so I go to download it, but it turns out his upload speed is capped at 15K/sec which is just way too slow for pulling an entire ISO, so now I'm basically stuck with Windows (*sigh*)...oh well, at least /. recommended some cool books to read during the install.

    --
    "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    1. Re:No wonder people are forced to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, how many laptops give you better resolution than 1024 x 768? Even most 14" units are native at this res. In fact 15" desktop TFT displays are also native at this res.

    2. Re:No wonder people are forced to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, 1024x768? what idiot would run at that low of a resolution. and on a laptop noless. Geesh, I hanvent ran lower than 9986x4832 for years now and with Quake 3 running at that speed my dual Geforce3's running in parallel does just fine...

      WHAT MORON THINKS 1024X768 IS A LOW RES?
      Only a retarded moron that's who...

      hey stupid-boy.... show me a reason your laptop needs insane amounts of resolution? so you can see more smaller porn?

    3. Re:No wonder people are forced to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so funny how many idiots don't read the whole article or post before posting a reply.

      This post was totally hilarious......

    4. Re:No wonder people are forced to use windows... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 2

      1024x768: Window 98
      1600x1200: Windows 98

      Any Questions?

    5. Re:No wonder people are forced to use windows... by mrjohnson · · Score: 1

      Uh... I fear you're just trolling.

      My laptop's native resolution is 1600x1280, and X is plenty happy at that.

    6. Re:No wonder people are forced to use windows... by mESSDan · · Score: 1

      Excellent! Comment! ;)

      --

      -- Dan
  31. @home bytecap idiotic by Sadfsdaf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First of all, I would like to say that I am no longer part of the @home network (THANKFULLY, i'm part of AT&T, which has a usenet server with binaries that do 3 day retention and excellent completion and unlimited downloads of course).

    To set a bytecap on their servers isn't exactly a good idea, throttling would be so much better, so if certain people were taxing the servers too much, they can be limited. I used to pull about 600KB/s(yes that's BYTES) on my local SF Bay Area server and loved it. I never exceeded 500 megabytes a day (mostly for anime) though. In fact, from what I've read and from what I've experience pre-AT&T-split, the news servers were never taxed, but it's possible that the network was at times (I seriously doubt it, but that's what they say).

    Although I don't do massive downloads, I do know many people who are warez kiddies and rely on usenet for their fix. We're talking 10+ Gigabytes per day here by the way. They're going to get their 10+ Gigabyte fix whether @home caps the downloads on the usenet servers or not, the only difference is that they're going to get it from somewhere else. The result of this is a bigger strain on their INTERNET network. Before (double-checking with traceroute), when one accessed the news server, it would just use the local @home network, never leaving the internet. Now, I know a few people that have signed up with Newsfeeds (note: don't even consider these guys unless you're a warez kiddie, stay with giganews/supernews/easynews/newshosting, they go there because it's unlimited downloads at fast speeds but the completion is horrible, spread over 18 servers so you have to use special programs).

    The warez kiddies are going to get their fix either way, before less bandwidth was used using the @home usenet server (no bandwidth going to the internet). Now they're getting it from college dorms and pay usenet services. Smart move, pushing the network traffic to the internet, where it costs money!

    1. Re:@home bytecap idiotic by Kagemushaa · · Score: 1

      600KB's?
      That's nuthin! When I was on the @home network i got close to 900KB's using a multi-threaded/connection news app.

      P.S.
      Yes I am aware of K's versus k's

      --
      Sigs are against my religion
  32. Solaris Intel by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2
    I have the April 01 release: 3 isos + the gnome 1.4 preview binaries.

    I guess I can UUEncode these - so you can figure out why they have that bit-cap on @Home Usenet access!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  33. Re:goatse.cx is obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  34. 15 KiloBytes is aprox 128 Kilobits. by strredwolf · · Score: 2

    Hmmm... let me see now:

    128 Kilobits / 8 bits per byte = 16 KiloBytes. Hmm, 1K must be used for sub-TCP/IP overhead...

    I doubt anyone would hit it constantly. In my case, I probably would hit it uploading to VCL or Kinkos. Streaming to the world? I don't do that -- I have an account at Live365, so I'm only have one outbound stream -- and that doesn't hit 20Kbps.

    Besides, I can't run a server (TOS prohibits it), but I wouldn't be surprized if they're loose about it: ICQ opens up a server on your computer, as well as all other IM's.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
  35. Re:goatse.cx is obsolete by chicolindo · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I don't think that you can ever free the world of goatse.cx postings. He/they is/are a sick fuck/fucks anyhow!

    You seem to be just adding to their 'cause'.

  36. Solaris Foundation Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I looks to me the like the source is still available.
    http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/source/
    Journalistic integrity? 8-]
    And in what world would one want to run Solaris on x86 ?
    I like Solaris but this has not seriously crossed my mind.
    It might be a simple view, but the options seem quite straight forward, get a Sparc or run Linux, this will cause the least grief.
    (not to diss BSD people, you have your own karma and I'm sure care not a whit about the simple or the least grief)
    mark

    1. Re:Solaris Foundation Source by quan74 · · Score: 1

      For one It's ALOT cheaper (in terms of buying hardware) to train people to use solaris on an x86 than it is on a SPARC.

    2. Re:Solaris Foundation Source by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Nah, not since Sun came out with the Sun Blade 100. It's a real Unix workstation for only $950 and it takes standard PC memory and ISA hard drives.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Solaris Foundation Source by quan74 · · Score: 1

      That'd be sweet, but unfortunatley the classrooms we run have systems that quad boot Solaris, NT 4 Workstation, NT 4 Server, and 2000 Pro. I'd love to get one of these (for MYSELF) with the SunPCI card....
      :>

  37. Dave Thomas, entrepeneur, dead at 69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Dave Thomas was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

  38. FraudGruven - and /. was talking about it 1 yr ago by teambpsi · · Score: 2

    Linuxgruven, Sair And Employment Practices

    Maybe more intelligent applicants should read /. ;)

    --

    Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
  39. Re:15KB... why by s390 · · Score: 2

    The reason ISPs cap upstream bandwidth at XX KB/sec is to indirectly limit download bandwidth. The upstream cap limits the rate at which you can ACK received packets, depending on fragmentation, multi-packet adaptive ACKing for streaming, etc. Simple, huh? Or, at least that's why I think they're doing this upstream speed cap.

    But I might be wrong and would welcome more knowledgable comments.

  40. 15KB by watsondk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would be very happy to have a 3GB cap for NG use, here in Sydney on the worlds worse broadband service we get 3GB/Month for everything then get charged for excess traffic.

    You are lucky to be with @home

  41. @home + business users by jigokukoinu · · Score: 1

    I know of 2 specific instances in Salem, Oregon where a company wished to use cable broadband access in their business. Neither wanted to pay for a T1 and so ATT allowed them (us in one case) to use a normal ATT@Home account at the normal ATT@Home cost of ~$45/month. Call them, if they don't off a special package for business, they'll porbably just say "OK". Odd for them, but true to the teeth. -Jigokukoinu

  42. Re:Dave Thomas, Dead at 69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn konqueeror! post anonymously my ass.

  43. Caps, Caps and More Caps. by jigokukoinu · · Score: 1

    My only request for ATT would be to "pick a cap". If they are going to cap my bandwidth (128Kb/s up-1.5Mb/s down in Salem, Oregon) then they had better let me USE it. Capping total bandwidth is a decent decision for a healthy network (128Kb/s bah!), but capping individual services in addition to the original cap is just reduction of service and should go with a reduction in cost for that service. Now I shall return to my hovel and deal with my 3 gigs of USENET traffic every three days. I don't know if I can handle it!!! -Jigokukoinu :)

  44. Re:FraudGruven - and /. was talking about it 1 yr by amlutias · · Score: 5, Interesting

    if you look at the comments in that thread, there are several from linuxgruven "employees" with similar User ID numbers, all saying how great the company is, and specifically mentioning the $45,000/yr figure.

    start at comment 46309 and end at 469313.

  45. 15KB-128KB-128Kb by Anubis333 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    @Home is now capped at 15KB up, which is 128Kb, yes, very good. Support promised me that it would be up to 128KB when they changed over. 15KB doesnt not allow me to work from home. I upload uncompressed videos or targa sequences; large files. I used to get about 5KB on my modem (with modem compression) So I said this is like a few modems, Ill try to be more quantitative next time, but look at where that got me with the kilobit/byte thing?!

    As for usenet, I like to view others animation and files on usenet. Its not as much the cap, its that they are capping it. I dont like any change in TOS that gives me less room to stretch. 3gb in 3 days today, 3gb a month tommorow.

    CE

  46. Re:15KB... why by mattdm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're doing it to keep you from running servers from your home. If you want to do that, they want you to pay them a lot more.

  47. Comcast.Net replaces @home ATT and Roadrunner by Olliver+J. · · Score: 1
    If you are a Comcast subscriber, you are going to be moved to the NEW IMPROVED Comcast.net broadband network. I WAS a Roadrunner subscriber who was traded off to Comcast by ATT during the great Cable merger wars last year. Here is the Detroit area the just moved us off from RoadRunner and onto Comcast.Net. Soon the @home people are going over. And I imagine later the new ATT people being acquired now will get moved.

    Here is the deal. THERE IS A 128kb CAP on uploads now. THERE ARE NO NEWSGROUP SERVERS as part of the new Comcast.net. If you want Newsgroups, ya gotta find someplace to get to them. Comcast is not going to supply them. This is all in the new improved terms of service you get when you are moved over. By the way, they sent out CDs with their ISP software/spyware that poses as technical support stuff. As far as I know, nobody got their CD in one piece. That was at least something I could laugh at.

    I gotta think that Road Runner is going to be hurting if Comcast is moving everyone over to their network. They are going to losing the AT&T people, the old Mediaone people, etc..

  48. solaris x86 is still up.. by cybrthng · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    solaris x86 is still up on the very link you say doesn't work.

    and solaris 9 is still scheduled for x86

    as well as being tested on SledgeHammer (amd) and ofcourse Itanium.

    so whats the big problem?

    1. Re:solaris x86 is still up.. by fo0bar · · Score: 2, Informative
      The comment at top is talking about downloading Solaris 8 for Intel. Sparc is still available, Intel is gone.

      You can still order the media kit for either platform. My guess is they took down the Intel version because of too many people with PCs grabbing them, eating away at the bandwidth. Hell, if the customer wants Solaris 8 Sparc, most likely they bought their hardware from Sun. I personally have not paid a penny to them yet (not intentionally, I have nothing against the company).

      They're cutting their losses. I may not like it, but I understand why they're doing it.

  49. Re:15KB... why by s390 · · Score: 2

    They're doing it to keep you from running servers from your home. If you want to do that, they want you to pay them a lot more.

    Well yes, I reckon you're right - or it's for both reasons. But doesn't artificially limiting upload bandwidth basically suck? The ISPs and broadband providers costs track to aggregate bandwidth provided with no distinction between upstream vs downstream. We shouldn't let them get away with charging more for upstream (content serving) than downstream (content consuming). Where's the FCC, the FTC, the DoJ, when we need them? Looking the other way at direction of a bought-off Congress, I guess.

  50. Comcast policies by thesolo · · Score: 2

    For those complaining about the comcast 15/K bandwidth cap...check your @Home AUP. Every contract from @Home has 128kbps upload speed written in it--if you had faster speed before (like I did), it was because they didn't enforce the policy. Mine switched over many months ago, and I was way pissed, but couldn't do anything; it was what I agreed to. Its annoying, BUT Comcast will be offering different rate plans for higher upload speeds, if you need them. That's one reason why I'm happy with the switch.

    Also, up here in the Philly region, the switchover is already complete. It happened last Friday, but without ANY notice whatsoever. I was expecting to VNC into my machine from work, but I couldn't because my static IP changed. I'm posting right now from comcast.net, not home.com.

    1. Re:Comcast policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've made the switch in Philly? I know they took care of Jersey; I didn't realize they got the actual city of Philadelphia yet. Is there any (easy) way for me to tell?

  51. 128 kbit/s videoconfrencing by redhotchil · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hm I don't quite seen where you are going with this.. video confrencing at 128 kbit/s is very feasable, even with moderate compression techniques. I video confrence all the time on dual channel isdn, works great.

    1. Re:128 kbit/s videoconfrencing by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Ooops sorry i meant 15kbit/s makes it impossible.

      Too easy to mess them up :)

  52. 10 GB per day! by redhotchil · · Score: 1

    When I see a person that can even consume 10+ gig of information in a single day, unless this is like DVD quality video, then I will not be surprised to see

  53. Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes. Most cable ISPs restrict upstream bandwidth usage. However, with several easy steps under Linux, it's quite possible to get around these restrictions.
    Keep in mind that I've only tried this with DOCSIS modems. It may or may not work for you.

    1. The first thing you want to do is find the IP address of the ISP's TFTP server. For me, this was the same IP as the HFC DHCP server. You can find that out by looking at your cable modem's mini webserver if availble. If not, play around with an SNMP client.
    2. After you find the name of the TFTP server, get the name of the TFTP boot config file. This is availble through the same manner that you got the IP tothe real TFTP server.
    3. Get the TFTP file. Use tftp to do this.
    4. Decode the TFTP boot file using the docsis utility availble from http://docsis.sourceforge.net. The output will look something like this:
    Main {
    NetworkAccess 1;
    ClassOfService {
    ClassID 1;
    MaxRateDown 1544000;
    MaxRateUp 128000;
    PriorityUp 0;
    GuaranteedUp 0;
    MaxBurstUp 0;
    PrivacyEnable 0;
    }
    MaxCPE 3;
    /* EndOfDataMarker */
    }

    5. Edit the config file to your own liking. You probably want to set "MaxBurstUp" to 0 to make this value unlimited.
    6. Encode your own version of the file and place in the root level of your tftpd server, which is set to /boot by default on my distribution of Linux (Debian). The name of the file MUST EQUAL the name of the config file that the modem normally gets.
    7. You then need to create a /etc/hosts entry for your cable modem's local IP (almost always 192.168.100.1). This is because when the modem requests its TFTP file from you, DNS will not be availble, and inet doesn't like not having DNS availble to resolve hostnames.
    8. Create an alias address to the eth interface your cable modem's CPE interface is connected to. This IP address alias needs to be the same address as the real TFTP server's IP. You can do this like so:

    ifconfig eth0:1 TftpServerAddress netmask 255.255.255.255

    Notice the netmask setting. This is important. Otherwise you wind up having unwanted network routes which will break things. Plus, you only want the CM to have access to this IP, nobody else.
    9. Create a static route to your cable modem from this "spoofed" address. This is needed so that you're "coming from" that spoofed IP when you communicate directly with your modem.
    This can be accomplished by:

    route add -host 192.168.100.1 gw TftpServerAddress

    10. Make sure you have a time server enabled in your inet service, as well as the tftpd service.
    11. Start watching your log files which will indicate a connection to the TFTP server. You can do this by:

    tail -f /var/log/daemon.log

    12. Start pinging your cable modem's CPE interface. This "poisons" the ARP cache and makes the modem think that TftpServerAddress is located on the CPE interface with a MAC address of your NIC. Then when it comes to connect to that IP, it will know where to find it.

    13. Reset the modem while you are still pinging it. Make sure that the modem connects to your TFTP server and grabs the file. You can verify the upstream speed by querying the modem with an SNMP client after it comes back online:
    snmpget 192.168.100.1 public transmission.127.1.1.3.1.3.1
    The output should be equal to the value you used for MaxRateUp in your configuration file. If it is, make sure to destroy the IP alias on your network interface by doing:

    ifconfig eth0:1 0

    1. Re:Bandwidth by itallushrt · · Score: 1

      I work for a cable modem ISP and would like to say that yes this is theft of service and it does come with a price is caught. First of course your service would be terminated, and second possible criminal charges would be applicable. However, if you are lucky enough to get it to work I would not consider it a permanent solution. Also, Cisco, 99.99% of Cable Modem Termination Systens or UBR(Universal Broadband Routers) deployed in Cable Head Ends are made my Cisco, has measures in place to prevent this type of occurance. Please read this link : http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/109/docsis_config 6.html#511694956 If your ISP has such measures in place then don't waste your time. thanks! itallushrt@hotmail.com

    2. Re:Bandwidth by itallushrt · · Score: 1

      Sorry that link was bad. here is the actual link

  54. HAHA! @Home SU(KS! RR remains king... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and its cheaper!!!

  55. Re:Damn (broken links) by tpurcell · · Score: 1

    Sorry about that. I had a . instead of a - ... They're fixed now...

  56. Road Runner... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually you get what you pay for, but not with RR. You get more: I've topped out at 281KBytes (~2.2mbits!) sustained downloading with upstream being nearly the same (T1's & Direct Connect).

    $40 per month for my service is wonderful, expecially with the service we get from the local RR people. When we had problems, they diagnosed&treated us with an in-house signal AMP!

    @Home=Dinosaurs
    RR=Birds

  57. $50 for cable too much? Use something else then. by xeeno · · Score: 1

    Does your contract with @home say unlimited usenet access? If it doesn't, then don't bitch about it. Just go somewhere else.
    I don't use a cablemodem, and I left directvdsl because their new usenet policy (200 mb/day on binaries), total lack of tech support, and overzealous sales department. I now use bellsouth, which contracts with a feed that expires binaries after 2 days. Do I feel for those of you that are stuck with 3 gb/3 days? Only in that you guys are the victims of a new policy. I actively follow vcd/warez/porn groups, and there simply isn't 3 gb/ 3 days worth of data posted that is worth downloading. There's incredible amounts of reposts, though. Do you need to download the same thing 12 times?
    Be realistic, these guys are cutting all of the losses that they can. Usenet is one - it's a tremendous bandwidth hog, and requires very expensive hardware and maintenance to run right.
    You're just the victim of yet another .com.

  58. Sun's FAQ on x86 Solaris Cancelation by jeffphil · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read Sun's reason for discontinuing DL's here:

    http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/faq.h tml#30

  59. I'm on Comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I have learned that Comcast@Home (Soon to be ATT Broadband) has instituted a network-wide cap on user upload to 15KB! (Thats not much more than dialup)

    I'm on Comcast in New Mexico, and my upload speed is the same as it was before - 20-25k/sec. If they've actually put this cap in place at this point, it hasn't yet affected my area.

  60. uh, intel is still up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/intel download.html

  61. Linuxgruven Account by GeekLife.com · · Score: 2
    Being from St. Louis and hearing about this Linuxgruven scam reminded me of a guy who left our company excitedly to work for the only Linux support company in town.

    I did a quick google search and found this comment of his:

    http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2001-Ma r/att-2598/01-Linuxgruven
    Yes it's a scam. The fact is that they count on people not passing the LCA.
    They do this by promising people that have no chance of becoming a Linux
    admin. Most of the time these are people that can't even use windows
    computers.
    Looks like they're trying to keep former employees quiet by having them sign NDAs about the company. Luckily a few knew enough to not sign up.
  62. offical @Home cap at 15KBp/s for years now + email by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    Been that way for /at least/ the last three years.

    Nothing new, just that it is actualy going to be enforced now across the network.

    Hopefuly Comcat won't do too much else though, bleh.

    My e-mail address had better not change /again/. As it is I am afriad to use my current ISP one for anything offical.

    Shoot I thought that one of the 'advantages' of going with a big company was that you could be relatively sure that your e-mail address wouldn't be changing.

    Ah, oh well. ::sighs::

    Better then when @Home first started out in my area, hehe, 300bps uploads to the mail server. ^_^ The webspace accounts were also horrible, heh.

  63. Re:15KB... why by MemRaven · · Score: 2
    Uhm, just a couple of questions before you start really thinking about how awful the providers are:
    1. Do you know how ADSL works? I don't know all the details, but the A stands for Asymmetric, and there's probably some technical reason why one side is faster than the other (if I were to guess completely off the top of my head in slashdot style, I'd suggest it would be to maximize downstream bandwidth with cheaper hardware on both ends). In fact, even in places like London (when you can get it), your upstream can be faster (250kbps), but it's still half the downstream speed (which is only 500kbps there).
    2. Do you know how market segmentation works? The principle is that you price packages such that you maximize revenue for all customers. Considering that the vast majority don't want to do any upstream traffic beyond P2P music traffic (my mom, a typical DSL customer in the bay area, just cares about getting to ebay and email of her granddaughter faster), the best way to maximize revenue is to reduce the price for those who want fewer frills (i.e. static IP address(es), > 1.5Mbps traffic, upstream bandwidth) to get more customers, and increase the price on the frills to sock it to the people who are willing to pay.

    For the latter, that's perfectly rational market behavior, and I suspect that even if Congress, FTC, FCC, DoJ, et. al. cared at all, they'd think it was a good thing because it helps bring broadband to more people rather than fewer, because they can make up the money on the more, simpler users with the fewer higher revenue customers. The same reason why gas and electric bills are usually tiered: maximize the benefit to society as a whole by charging those people who are most willing and able to pay for more/better service more.


    And don't think this is limited to ISPs at all. Next time you buy a car, wonder why those options exist, or why functionally equivalent cars are made by different divisions of the same company (like the old Dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler ones that even looked the same): market segmentation. Should that be illegal as well?

    I suspect from your background that this is actually tongue in cheek. If so, sorry. Just couldn't let the chance for a good old slashdot discussion about things we all know very little about go to waste.

  64. Re:15KB... why by Wumpus · · Score: 1

    Actually, cable technology is skewed this way. To get high bandwidth, you have to transmit at high enough RF levels to get over the noise (and cable plants are noisy). If your cable modem had enough juice to transmit this loudly, it'd be a toaster.So, upstream has less bandwidth than downstream.

    It all comes down to SNR.

  65. Useful comment by MegaFur · · Score: 1

    Your comment was informative (to me). Thank you.

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  66. Re:15KB... why by joeboo · · Score: 5, Informative

    That sounds like an indirect result of the cap. The problem with most cable company equipment - the company that I work for included - is that upstream bandwidth that is available.

    DOCSIS specifications - for US channel plan anyway - call for a 6mhz wide channel on the downstream. The downstream is anywhere from 91mhz to 750mhz (there are even some 850mhz cable plants). The 6mhz channel corresponds to a standard tv channel. With DOCSIS 1.0, the downstream can be either 64QAM or 256QAM. This is just the modulation of the digital signal as it is sent from the main facility to the subscriber. 256QAM gets you about 38mb/s of data transfer. 64QAM a little bit less.

    Now, here is the crappy part. The upstream channel space from the subscriber back to the cable facilities is limited to 5-40 mhz. This is the width of the return path that the amplifiers in the system will receive and re-transmit. 0-10 is pretty much useless on most cable plants. That is the frequency space that short wave radios and the like use (a funny side note is that we once picked up a short wave religious station out of Boston using the signal ingress and amplification at our main facility). The rest is usefull for your upstream bandwidth on a DOCSIS system. The 1.0/1.1 spec states that you can use a frequency with a width of 200hz up to 3.2mhz. Obviously, the more space that you use, the more bandwidth that you have. There are also 2 types of modulation schemes that you can use. QAM16 and QPSK. QPSK is more reliable. QAM16 can carry more data. Most cable plants will use QPSK - your cable plant has to be air tight to use QAM16.

    Anyway, if you use QPSK on a 3.2mhz wide channel for the upstream, you get about 5mb/s of available bandwidth. If you put 150 customers on this upstream port, and they all uploading files, emails, etc: then you could very well max out your upstream bandwidth.

    That's why you have an upstream cap.

    --
    Joseph W. Breu
  67. Mirror of the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have a mirror of the Solaris source?

    I've already jumped through Sun's hoops three times without any luck. They require you to print-out an 11 page document, sign it, and FAX it (long-distance) to them. They still haven't sent me the "serial number" required to download. The media is $75 ($75 for a CD!), so I'm not going to do that.

  68. Re:15KB... why by Wumpus · · Score: 1

    One other thing to keep in mind is that that QPSK channel is shared, so you have to worry about collisions. That reduces your bandwidth even more.

    No wonder - upstream on cable plants was designed to suppor pay per view purchases, not web servers.

  69. Don't see 'em...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those comments don't seem to exist in the system. Could you post a different link? (Or did you mean to say user-id?)

  70. Sneaky! I luv it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wish I'da thought of that. If I had mod points you'd be at 5 now!

  71. Sloaris good? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 0, Troll

    Come on - I've worked in several IT shops where we had BIG sun machines (starfire and 4500's) - the only reason they had them was because they needed them for some completely proprietary application that doesn't run (or scale) on anything else (like oracle, or banner) - not because it was good, stable, reliable, cheap, or easy to use - in fact other then stable (for the most part) its none of those.

  72. But are you aware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of B's vs b's...?

    I think it's all a buncha "bs" anyway...

  73. Re:$50 for cable too much? Use something else then by nesthigh · · Score: 1

    Hello. I also recently left directvdsl because of their usenet policy (and the fact that i moved). 200megabytes/day is a joke. Their policy towards linux, personal web servers, and static ips might be missed. But the fact that i couldn't get DSL for 6-8 weeks because i had a "new" number helped. I've recently subscribed to Cox@Home because they were ready to install the evening I called (a sturday), wife wasn't (they came sunday morning at 8:30AM *ARGGH*), they offer a 30 day money back plan, no monthly contract (just like Telocity). They do use (lame) dhcp, tho my ip is static (so far), and some ports (80,25) are blocked. I use my works usenet account (bellsouth) for 80-90 percent of my usenet leeching, maybe more. Bellsouth contracts usenetnews.com/webusenet.com. They run a far better usenet service than @Home does, and I can call them in the middle of the night on their toll free number. I've even reported bugs in thier software (Twister/Cyclone). They've gone unfixed, but, fortunately I don't pay for it. I do however think that the gig/day limit of @home is reasonable.. but that external usenet traffic costs them more.

    Back to Telocity (DirecTvDsl) they spent more money sending me a few issues of the TV guide than they would providing me with decent usenet service if they had a few machines running nntpcache spread out around the country (Dallas for us in New Orleans).

    oh well.. I really consider myself lucky that I can get usenet from bellsouth with my username/password from work.. and that I can exceed the capacity of Bellsouth Dsl in the late evening..

  74. Re:15KB... why by ianaverage · · Score: 1

    I personally think that the upload cap is great. At school my freshman year we had no cap and things started to slow down. After the school threw on an upload cap, the general performance of the network increased dramatically...even your regular Joe could notice the difference. I was pissed off for a bit, but ultimately it turned out to be great. I run a little server and sure, I would like to be able to remotely download my stuff faster, but I am perfectly willing to sacrifice my upload capabilities if it is going to make everything else run smoother. If you want to upload a lot at a fast rate, then pay up an get an account that allows for it...not everyone should have to pay for that option.

  75. LinuxGruven - Scam tales from the inside by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had the misfortune of dealing with Linuxgruven.

    What a bunch of liars, cheats, and con-artists.

    I was one of the ones suckered into their scam. After weeks of job hunting I saw their add in the paper... Went in for the interview and a slick "HR" rep in a suite was there to "interview" me for the position. We were given a apptitude test, that an illiterate child could pass ( I later found out they were never looked at) and told we would find out if we qualified later in the day.

    We were told it was 45K a year salary, AND overtime if you worked more than 40 a week. Only have to take our $2500 class and pass either the SAIR Certs or their Highly Accredited In house test "the NEW standard for linux certification."

    Well, I was a sucker and told my head hunters I was going to go with LinuxScrew'em... whoops gruven. I took the class.

    The class was 12 people in a 15 by 10 foot room with one less computer than student. Taught by instructors that had passed neither their SAIR cert or the Linuxgruven Cert...

    It was a VERY basic Intro into Linux... honestly not that bad for a VERY BASIC Intro to linux, but NOT in any way a preperation for the SAIR or Linuxgruven Cert.

    Ah the LinuxGruven Cert... I asked the HR rep what the pass rate was... he said about %70.. mind you the test DIDN'T EXIST yet. It didn't exist till well after january of 2001. And when it was finished... it was IMPOSSIBLE. The test questions were developed by polling the employees and I never was able to find out if any of the answers/questions were checked for veracity. I think out of all the people who took it there were only 2 people who ever passed both parts.

    The "HR" people WERE salesmen, and were called such inside the company. And they worked almost entirely on commssion. They had a warm body policy... if you were enough sucker to pay cash up front, then you were in the class. The instructors, begged them again and again to at least make sure the students were computer literate but they were telling people that if they could check email, they could do well in the class and pass the tests...

    Well I did get my SAIR certs after a month of study and testing AFTER the class - I was one of only like 3 from my class to actually pass them. I knew another fellow from my class that spent over $2000 retaking the exams only to be put off about starting for a month. His first day was the day they closed the doors and told us not to come to work.. mind you without any provision for informing the students. I and a few others defied the edit to not come in. Felt we had to face our students and let them know what we could of the situation. Way to much only came out afterwards but I was warning students already to not quit their current positions.

    We kept hoping that LG would actually start looking for contracts for us, work to do... but they never did. We begged for real work, but they kept just basing the whole thing on a pyramid scheme till it burst.

    While Hibits and his croney were the worst, general opinion is that Porter was not blameless either... but to be fair he may have just been promoted way above his competancy level and used as a scape goat/fall guy by the owners.

    Oi, I could go on but that is enough.

    Any other LG victims out there?

    1. Re:LinuxGruven - Scam tales from the inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I can believe Porter wasn't blameless. The guy was promoted so quickly to CIO then CEO, he [i]must[/i] have been privy to some of the goings-on. Either that, or he was rather easily duped into being a scapegoat. Neither case speaks too well of his actions and decisions.

      On a side note, I personally found him arrogant to the extreme. That's just MO, though.

  76. it works by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    My roomie had to mess with the config file a bit (he's running Debian testing), but now we're up from 800/200 d/u to full T1 speed. Just took a few minutes.

    1. Re:it works by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      oh, and thanks for the info :)

    2. Re:it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Scudsucker,
      CYM. I sent you a request to see if you could send me a copy of the utility.
      I was on the souceforge web site but unable to download:
      docsis-0.6.2-RELEASE.tgz
      nor any of the earlier releases.

      TIA, Air

      BTW if this 'really' works, I would be psyched.
      I initially had a 7mg download and 1mg upload when I first got cable internet. However when I purchased a modem, they apparently realized that I wasnt capped correctly and the provisioning on the new cable modem caused my speeds to go from:
      7mg down 1 mg up to
      3mg down 128k up.

      Man that was painful. I could 'now' understand the withdrawal that heroine users go thru. Now with what just happened with @home and comcast, my speeds have further deteriorated to:
      900k down 128k up.

    3. Re:it works by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      hey dude....if for some reason you check back here, i fixed my email address.....

  77. Sun GNU minded by leandrod · · Score: 2

    I never heard or read that Sun was GNU minded. Indeed they have been sitting for something like seven years on a internal document by a bigshot (Bill Joy in 1.994? could someone find the URL for the PostScript document?) recommending to GPL Solaris.

    If that was done we wouldn't have needed so much effort duplication on Linux and the various BSDs -- OK, perhaps BSDs would have continued on the basis of the license and leanness of it, Linux on the basis of flexibility (not having a corporation in charge), and the GNU Project on politics. But each of this, and other free software projects, would have been able to reuse Solaris source code, and that would be a gread advantage for open systems in general and free software in particular, getting us better free systems earlier and advancing the open systems cause.

    Not only that, it would have been much harder for Microsoft and proprietary, low-quality software to become so dominant.

    It's already to late for the GPL'ing of Solaris to have the original intended effects, but it would still be A Good Thing (TM).

    As usual, Microsoft and the enemies of liberty in general win their victories not because they're good in any sense, but due to the failures of their foes.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  78. Re:15KB... why by Cato · · Score: 2

    This sounds plausible given the limited upstream cable bandwidth per segment, explained elsewhere. If you have 128 Kbps upstream bandwidth, TCP downloads (not UDP) are limited to approx 4.8 Mbps (just multiply upstream by 37.5 to calculate the max TCP downstream bandwidth). The details are at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=25234&cid=2743 853

  79. User fury as Sun puts x86 Solaris to sleep by jlanng · · Score: 1

    User fury as Sun puts x86 Solaris to sleep

    Sun is putting the Intel version of its Solaris Unix OS in the deep freeze, citing support and development costs as the reason. There won't be an x86 version of Solaris version 9 this year, but Sun will support existing versions for seven years, Solaris marketing director Graham Lovell told IDGyesterday. More charitably - or gullibly if you're being cruel - CNet interpreted the same news as a "delay".

    But as you know, the body's metabolism can be fatally impaired by spending too long in the cold, and no version 9 this year effectively means the end of Solaris on x86.

    It's been maintained at great expense over the past nine years, and only last October was refreshed with USB support, for example. But Sun has only ever seen a miniscule market share as a reward, and of course precisely no downstream hardware revenue, because Sun doesn't sell Intel servers.

    And the expenses keeps piling up. Just ask Be, Inc. There are more chips and chipsets to support than ever before, and Foster, and the SMT Foster, and AMD's Athlon XP, and Athlon SMP and Sledgehammers either here or on their way.

    However, users on the busy Solaris on Intel mailing lists were not happy bunnies last night, pointing out that the x86 version maintains mindshare and offers a cheap way to bring new recruits into the Sun fold.

    "You've killed the dream, Sun. New admins *DON'T* have a way to learn about Sun on the cheap," wrote one user.

    "Mindshare is a terrible thing to waste," punned another. "It's expensive to develop, hard to measure and difficult to correlate to earnings, yet very important to long term success. This will be the biggest casualty if Solaris x86 is abandoned."

    And there's already a "Save Solaris on x86" page up and running here.

    1. Re:User fury as Sun puts x86 Solaris to sleep by jlanng · · Score: 1

      The correct link to this full article is User fury as Sun puts x86 Solaris to sleep

  80. Re:Theft of Bandwidth by Technician · · Score: 2

    Could this be considered theft of service? Is it in violation of the TOS? Could legal action be taken for this. IANAL You may want to consult with legal councel to see if this opens any legal issues. This may be nothing more that stealing bandwidth from other users by screwing up the load balancing the ISP is using. Too many leaches may kill the host.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  81. Re: Caps - OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree it's expensive, a lot are these days -- I've had to switch servers a few times due to rising charges. I've tried some 'bargain' feeds and come away quite unhappy, but I have heard good things about newsfeeds.com. EZNews I like because it is so damn easy (they even provide a means to configure the best static route for your packets!), and I only need it occasionally.

  82. Oh, quit whining by pyramid+termite · · Score: 2

    Life is what you make it, you know. (forgot one, didn't you?)

  83. Welcome To Charter Comm.... by Omicron · · Score: 1

    Now you guys getting capped on your uploads know what it's like to be a Charter Communications customer. My "Gold" package is 768/128 down/up. And that costs me damn near $50 a month. The $40 a month package is 256/128 I think. And the only DSL provider around here is Ameritech who I absolutely refuse to use...I've even gotten rid of my normal phone line and gone strictly to Sprint PCS because of Ameritech.

    About an hour away from here in Green Bay, WI or Appleton, WI RoadRunner service is available that blows these speeds away at cheaper prices.

    Just goes to show what competition brings to the market....

  84. Re:Theft of Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative



    Um, I can't believe you have to ask that. Christ.

    This is highly illegal, this is that "hacking" stuff you've probably read about. If you get caught, you will be disconnected and legal action will be taken against you. Which in this case will probably _not_ include a jail sentence, but you never know.. Of course, you'll probably never get caught anyway..

  85. Poster missed a digit by Marvin_OScribbley · · Score: 2

    46309 to 469313 would be a lot of comments.

    Try 469309 to 469313.

    --
    I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
    1. Re:Poster missed a digit by amlutias · · Score: 1

      hahah, sorry. i was really tired. thanks! i'd transfer some mod points over, if i were able.

  86. Linuxgruven becomes Linux Island by Mike+McCune · · Score: 1

    A few of the old Linuxgruven (NOT Hibbits or Lebb) moved to Chicago and founded Linux Island using the same scam. In an article in the "Chicago Computer Guide", their CEO says:

    "Our career changer course is geared towards taking people and training them in open source and providing them with a job. Our training actually guarantees people employment here. The reason we're trying to do this is to build our workforce by guaranteeing these people a position. We have what we consider some of the best-trained people in the industry after they finished our course. We simply hire them on to establish a base of operations for our technical support. They have to pass the tests and be certified of course. All of our people are certified and at several different levels," said Peterson.

    http://www.chicago-computer.com/augclout.htm

    Guaranteeing a job for an upfront fee is almost always a scam. My suspicions were confirmed when I talked to someone who used to work there. After paying about $2500 for his Linux 'training", his "job" was to sit in a boiler room and try to sign people up for classes.

    After seeing the news story on Linuxgruven, I decided to check to see how Linux Island was doing. Their Web site (www.linuxisland.com) is down and their phone (630-724-9210) is disconnected. Their scam collapsed even faster than Linuxgruven's scam did!

    --

    In a world that is Free and Open, who needs Windows and Gates?

  87. Linux Island in Chicago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was "interviewed" by a company in the Chicago area called Linux Island. For approx. $2000 they would enrole me in their Linux cert. class then (if I passed) hire me for up to $12.00/hr. They even gave me student loan papers!

    Sounded fishy so I passed.

  88. Re: Linuxgruven bumper sticker by booch · · Score: 2

    Actually, the Linuxgruven bumper sticker was around before the company. The bumper sticker *was* a Far-from-pukin joke knock-off. The bumper stickers were printed by LinuxCare, who was not too happy with someone taking the name.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  89. comcast transparent web proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note that Comcast now also uses a transparent web proxy. It doesn't seem very elegant. If you check your ip against a webserver, it's the ip of the proxy.

  90. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good lord, you are insane.

  91. Re:15KB... why by Nawak · · Score: 1

    I don't think you took TCP windows into account...

    If I remember well, TCP ACKs are sent for every complete windows, which are 8KB+ in size...

    I don't think that this upstream cap could limit TCP download speed much. Maybe it can happen with some other protocols but the video-streams protocols (that another reader pointed out) do not use ACKs since they do not care about the user's speed... That's why there are multiple streams (50kbps, 100kbps, 300kbps...) available for the user to choose (based on what he thinks his connection will be with that server)

    --
    A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
  92. my last post on this topic by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

    There is other access in my area.

    I would cancel if they tried this.

    Road Runner doesn't restrict access to anything.

    I use Road Runner.

    Five mins ago when I was on the phone with a tech support guy he laughed when I asked if they capped ANY bandwidth.

    Contract?

    We are talking services. People suggest getting another new feed. That's ridiculous when the ADVERTISE that they have news server/feeds.

    And once again... it doesn't cost them a dime to send data from their local office to you. If that were the case then they wouldn't let you leave the TV on all night.

    If they advertise something and don't provide it, then you have a case. It's called bait and switch. [false advertising].

    In this case it's public knowledge that you are not going to get unlimited access to newsgroups, not a problem. They aren't hiding this somewhere.

    BUT... that doesn't change the fact that I [me] don't agree with their choice.

    If they want to support alternate news feed suppliers, or even DSL services let them.

    1. Re:my last post on this topic by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      Road Runner doesn't restrict access to anything.

      Road Runner decides this stuff on a (small) regional basis. In many places, they do cap upload bandwidth.

      In Central Florida, they block inbound port 80.

      And once again... it doesn't cost them a dime to send data from their local office to you.

      It costs them a lot of dimes, but not any more than if you weren't using the connection, that's true.

      But it costs them a hell of a lot of dimes to transfer data from the Internet to you, and from you to the Internet. And it costs them a lot of dimes to transfer data from their servers that aren't in your backyard to you.

      In this case it's public knowledge that you are not going to get unlimited access to newsgroups, not a problem. They aren't hiding this somewhere.

      'zackly. If folks don't like it, nobody is putting a gun to their hands and forcing them to buy broadband. It's a luxury, not a necessity. Most people don't have it at all, even most people with Internet access.

  93. Re: Linuxgruven bumper sticker by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    Hehe cool, thanks for the info.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  94. Re:Theft of Bandwidth by Technician · · Score: 2

    I knew that. I posted that so people know that it could lead to legal action and consider the choices carefully. Then make an informed decision. Not being a laywer, I have no idea how bad the law can be used to slap you. With cable TV in the USA, theft of service no matter how little opens you up to being billed for many years of all the permium services on the system including pay per view regardless if you were able to swipe them all. Full access for several years of theft is assumed and need not be proven. The arm of the law is harsh to discourage theft of service. That is why I dropped cable service entirely. The temptation was great (I hack hardware) and the risk was way too much. Not having the service at all closed the huge liability hole. It was too dangerous to keep cable. I could not afford to get caught dinking with a cable box. I do not know if broadband has the same stiff penaltys. Check with your provider. Know the risk.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  95. Re:Dave Thomas, Dead at 69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ooooops! YAAD

  96. Re:15KB... why by Cato · · Score: 2

    ACKs are sent for every TCP segment received (i.e. a TCP packet) not per window. I was assuming that the window size is sufficiently large to allow transfers to go at full speed - this should be no problem with broadband connections as they are quite low latency in any case. So TCP windows are not really relevant here.

    Upstream caps *will* limit TCP download speed to 4.8 Mbps in this case - maybe you mean UDP protocols in your 2nd paragraph. UDP-based protocols may or may not have congestion control (i.e. backing off when they sense packet loss or excessive delays) - the ones without congestion control and rate adaptation let you select the stream with the right rate, but this is quite unnecessary if the protocol is designed to sense bandwidth and select the correct media stream.

    All this is fairly theoretical unless you are downloading from a very well-connected server that is quite close by (e.g. hosted by your ISP). I've rarely managed to get the full 1 Mbps when using real web/FTP sites with my ADSL connection.

  97. Re:Theft of Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone been able to actually download the utility?
    docsis-0.6.2-RELEASE.tgz

    I am unable to. I assume its a glitch with the server.

  98. Unable to download utility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone had success downloading
    docsis-0.6.2-RELEASE.tgz ?

  99. What's the most amount of damage they could do? by mbuckley · · Score: 1

    Just curious

  100. Re:Theft of Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are capable of independent thought. If they read /. they know what their law enforcement is capable of.