Are you abusing your ADSL line?

[LoneGunman]

to help more folks use their paid-for adsl service in any way they feel like - the local dc++ hub would appear to be at ibust.kicks-ass.net

 

[Karnaugh]

Abuse is relative - local traffic (as pointed out by SpamTheMan) costs telkom absolutely NOTHING, either in traffic costs or maintenance costs.

I think the word "Nothing" should be used carefully - there are physical limits, so they could encounter bottle necks which are physicaly impossible to solve without limiting clients use.

Of course, I'm sure we are far from that - however if they were to allow total uncapped use, it could happen quite quickly.

 

[bb_matt]

Me: "Hey you, you little ****1ng c@nt of an ADSL line !"
ADSL Line: "Beep"
Me: "What did you say ? - are you trying to get clever you little retarded f@ckster !"
ADSL Line: "Beep"
Me: "Say that one more time and I'll bash the living f@cking daylights outta you !"
ADSL Line: "Beep"
Me: "Right, that's it you little ****, you've pushed me too far now, you c@nt !" (gets hammer)

WHACK, SMASH, SPLINTER, BOOM

Me: "alrighty then clever cloggs, what do you have to say for yourself now ?"
ADSL Line:

 

[imterro]

to help more folks use their paid-for adsl service in any way they feel like - the local dc++ hub would appear to be at ibust.kicks-ass.net

nope, i belive that is only for iburst users... but there are other hubs such as sa hub and zahub.kicks-ass.net (not 100% sure about that)

 

[onionpeel]

Disagree

Abuse is relative - local traffic (as pointed out by SpamTheMan) costs telkom absolutely NOTHING, either in traffic costs or maintenance costs.

You are wrong there. Say you rent a line out to users and the capacity of the line is x. Shortly after reaching your 5:1 ration, all 5 users start to download at maximum, reducing the quality of service. You upgrade the line at your own cost, but its still not enough because the users continue to push the limits. What do you do? Surely you can't tell me that the abuse on your line from your subscribers is not going to impact you?

 

[onionpeel]

Fair is fair

At the end of the day one can only hope for them to be fair and improve the pricing structure so as to have everyone not feel like they've been had.

And likewise it's up to each of us to be fair to the infrastructure (service offered) i.e. not to try and suck the network dry.

 

[Ninja7]

HAHAHAHA!

Yeah we are abusing the lines, i wonder what poor old Telkom did to deserve this.

First of all local bandwidth itself costs Telkom virtually nothing. Its their lines in the ground and they have MORE THAN SUFFICENT funds and staff to do the maintenance.

Putting the servers under load is another thing (since servers cost money) but im sure telkom have separate servers for the capped users. And with the measly 3GB limit the servers are hardly being hammered overall since everybody is using the bandwidth sparingly, some people cant afford to be capped and lose the international access either.

As long as we dont try and go beyond our allocated download speed how the hell are we supposed to abuse the line anyway ? We are not running ultra speedy T3/VDSL unlimited lines here ! We are running "the 56k of broadband". We also pay R1000 a month for this service so we should at least be able to "eat the complimentary peanuts" ie local bandwidth.

Wake up Onionpeel ! I think you need to released who the real culprit is here...if Telkom offered us a 30GB local+International cap i can GUARANTEE almost every ADSL user would choose that over 3GB international + 100GB ("unlimted") local.

 

[Darth Garth]

lol...... i wouldnt mind if adsl got capped at like 50 gigs then if local is also capped. the crux of the matter is telkom is happy to give us a MERE 3gb and once that is used it is **** YOU. they keep comparing us to international isp's etc, but no other company worlwide offers a (according to telkom) HUGE cap of 3gb, TO SUITE EVERYONES NEEDS. Telkom couldnt care about any of us, i guesss we just get used to it, the goverment will realize one day that they are killing all the decent people of there money and is holding the country back. WELCOME TO OUR LOVELY COUNTRY: SOUTH AFRICA.


PLEASE TRY KILL ANYONE WITH MONEY AND WASTE HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY ON DIEING PEOPLE.

That is Mbeki for you.

End of story: **** THE WHITE MAN

Some people should not be allowed on the Internet ... see example above.

 

[killadoob]

whats dc++ and where do i find it?

you guys always telling me about this stop and telling me and show o yea and wtf is dc++

 

[killadoob]

tibby dude you lost the plot

what does being white have to do with high adsl prices
do black ppl get it cheaper?

 

[Silent_Bob]

tibby has lost the plot, u can get DC++ from http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net there are 2 main hubs in sa. there is SAhub: the sever is sahub.kick-ass.net
and there is ZAHUB the server is zahub.kicks-ass.net

 

[onionpeel]

Here we go again!

tibby dude you lost the plot

what does being white have to do with high adsl prices
do black ppl get it cheaper?

This is hysterical! Another post which has been hijacked and for some obscure reason (yes, it is obscure because somebody read their own prejudice into a vague statement), has been turned into a race row.

 

[Spamtheman]

With talk about capped accounts being restricted for local access as well, I wonder what has brought this on.
I saw on a forum a couple of days ago, somebody hinted that there are home users downloading 100GB per month. Surely that kind of usage warrants a leased line rather than ADSL? 100GB must be classified as abuse for a home any home user, running maximum upstream and downstream for 24x7. And yes, there is an impact on network resources, despite what some people may think. I must say, that these few who do this kind of thing may have hurt the others who keep their usage within reasonable limits, albeit high.
An analogy could be drawn along similar lines to the Cape water crisis of recent months.

This is flawed analogy of note.

You do not seem to grasp the way our internal (South African) telecoms network functions. By 2001 Telkom had succesfully rolled out their nationwide ATM network. This network spans the entire country (more or less) and is the backbone of our telecoms infrastructure. The reason Telkom implemented this technology was to carry their existing voice and data transmissions and to allow for later expansion. Each local Telkom exchange is connected to this network. If your exchange allows ADSL lines it is because there is a DSLAM connected to the ATM network present at that exchange.

Now Telkom already had enough reason to install an ATM network and the maintenance of that network is a fixed cost (which I do not know). That cost is unaffected by the volume of traffic passing passing through the network. The ATM network runs on Fiber Channel hence it does not suffer from wear and tear due to usage. A single ATM link, 135 Mbit/s, is capable of carrying 270 simultaneous 512 Kbit/s ADSL connections. Given that Telkom charges R599 line rental per 512 Kbit/s ADSL line they would be making around R 161 730 a month, and given that fiber optical cable is relative cheap (approximately $0.30 per yard = R 2300/km) it would make sound financial sense to expand the capacity of any exchange that did serve that many customers.

So traffic on Telkom's own network essentially pays for itself (just in terms of line rental, let alone the savings made by not having to send traffic over the SAT3 cable), but what about local peering with other ISP's? Well local peering is normally an agreement between two parties who have a great deal of traffic flowing between each others networks. An example would be SAIX peering with IS or UUNET. A peering agreement is basically this, both parties agree to split the costs of the line linking them and they typically agree to expand that line dependant on traffic. Now let's use IS and SAIX as an example. The two agree to set up a peering link and put a line in between the two ISPs. A Telkom line. Which costs SAIX virtually nothing given that that line will simply be a virtual circuit on the ATM network. Telkom will then assign a monetary value to that virtual circuit and expect IS to pay half that cost. So local peering costs Telkom virtually nothing either.

Your analogy was false in that local bandwidth is not a commodity that can just run out. It's not like there is a limited amount of fiber available in the world, if a link becomes saturated then it is already making enough money to pay for an upgrade.

I hope you've learnt a bit reading this, if you'd like to learn more about Telkom's ATM network give some of this a read. People who are using the maximum amount of bandwidth possible locally are in no way affecting your connection. If we where talking about international bandwidth then you would probably have a point, but since Telkom have already prevented any issue with people unfairly monopolizing international bandwidth by implementing the cap, you don't.

 

[guest2013-1]

*puts away the leather straps and anal lube*

no one is abusing their ADSL line...

 

[guest2013-1]

This is flawed analogy of note.

You do not seem to grasp the way our internal (South African) telecoms network functions. By 2001 Telkom had succesfully rolled out their nationwide ATM network. This network spans the entire country (more or less) and is the backbone of our telecoms infrastructure. The reason Telkom implemented this technology was to carry their existing voice and data transmissions and to allow for later expansion. Each local Telkom exchange is connected to this network. If your exchange allows ADSL lines it is because there is a DSLAM connected to the ATM network present at that exchange.

Now Telkom already had enough reason to install an ATM network and the maintenance of that network is a fixed cost (which I do not know). That cost is unaffected by the volume of traffic passing passing through the network. The ATM network runs on Fiber Channel hence it does not suffer from wear and tear due to usage. A single ATM link, 135 Mbit/s, is capable of carrying 270 simultaneous 512 Kbit/s ADSL connections. Given that Telkom charges R599 line rental per 512 Kbit/s ADSL line they would be making around R 161 730 a month, and given that fiber optical cable is relative cheap (approximately $0.30 per yard = R 2300/km) it would make sound financial sense to expand the capacity of any exchange that did serve that many customers.

So traffic on Telkom's own network essentially pays for itself (just in terms of line rental, let alone the savings made by not having to send traffic over the SAT3 cable), but what about local peering with other ISP's? Well local peering is normally an agreement between two parties who have a great deal of traffic flowing between each others networks. An example would be SAIX peering with IS or UUNET. A peering agreement is basically this, both parties agree to split the costs of the line linking them and they typically agree to expand that line dependant on traffic. Now let's use IS and SAIX as an example. The two agree to set up a peering link and put a line in between the two ISPs. A Telkom line. Which costs SAIX virtually nothing given that that line will simply be a virtual circuit on the ATM network. Telkom will then assign a monetary value to that virtual circuit and expect IS to pay half that cost. So local peering costs Telkom virtually nothing either.

Your analogy was false in that local bandwidth is not a commodity that can just run out. It's not like there is a limited amount of fiber available in the world, if a link becomes saturated then it is already making enough money to pay for an upgrade.

I hope you've learnt a bit reading this, if you'd like to learn more about Telkom's ATM network give some of this a read. People who are using the maximum amount of bandwidth possible locally are in no way affecting your connection. If we where talking about international bandwidth then you would probably have a point, but since Telkom have already prevented any issue with people unfairly monopolizing international bandwidth by implementing the cap, you don't.

I knew that, I just stopped argueing with people a long long time ago about this. Apparently they have their own opinion, and when they raise it, refuse to listen to anyone elses. Amazing hey, you'd think we're living in America or something.

Besides, R10 and the nastiest ho you can think of says his opinion was formed on basis of wireless technology and thought the same applies to fixed lines.

Who knows? No one knows....

 

[Spamtheman]

I'll inform him of the facts once, if he is unable to grasp them I will simply dismiss any further attempts at communication from him.

 

[Celemasiko]

You are wrong there. Say you rent a line out to users and the capacity of the line is x. Shortly after reaching your 5:1 ration, all 5 users start to download at maximum, reducing the quality of service. You upgrade the line at your own cost, but its still not enough because the users continue to push the limits. What do you do? Surely you can't tell me that the abuse on your line from your subscribers is not going to impact you?

Sorry, but why you talking about abuse? When we signed for an uncapped service, nobody restricted the usage. So, please don't talk about abuse. We have never done anything illegal, when we are using our line to its maximum capacity.

 

[guest2013-1]

Oh and btw, seems everyone here fails to grasp the idea of a contention ratio and STILL applies linear maths to everything. Shame. You can run close to 4000 users (uncapped I might add) all on a 1meg connection and use barely 70meg of bandwidth if the contention ratios are correct.

By the way you're thinking, 4000 users will use 4000 meg or something.

 

[Celemasiko]

Oh and btw, seems everyone here fails to grasp the idea of a contention ratio and STILL applies linear maths to everything. Shame. You can run close to 4000 users (uncapped I might add) all on a 1meg connection and use barely 70meg of bandwidth if the contention ratios are correct.

By the way you're thinking, 4000 users will use 4000 meg or something.

yes this an top. You're totally right,. I forgot....

 

[LoneGunman]

re ibust.kicks-ass.net and that 'being for iburst users only' - I dont see why DC++ Hubs should care who's on what kinda service.
I use a number of Hubs, and you can find people from just about every type of service there is, all happily enjoying themselves on a single Hub.
So join into whatever Hub you want - long as you have data to send/get - I dont see that it matters if you have dialup users+adsl+iburst users+diginet users all side by side. We shouldn't carry the divisions of the real world into online usage as well..