Wa Uunet

UUNet has not downright blocked BitTorrent traffic, it is still shaped, it is merely shaped to a susbtantially smaller proportion of the link than it used to be. Does this mean there aren't any ways around this, nope, a small minority will find ways around it, the idea is that a large majority will get shaped appropriately.

You seem to think UUNet has unlimited bandwidth. It doesn't.
 
@Warichard

Please understand, I am not looking to fight UUNET and I know very well that UUNET has limited ressources. (thanks to Telkom!!!) I just want justice to be done.
UUNET made one big mistake. Selling a product without observing the market is the biggest mistake one can make. And I am surprised that such a well-known and reliable company makes such a mistake. South Africans ARE bandwith-hungry after being limited for so long from Telkom and getting all these nice flatrate messages from overseas.
And then...oh wonder, an uncapped product comes on the market. Users are jumping on the product. That was to be foreseen, you dont think so?

UUNET should have been calculated and forcasted their needs and limit the signing-in of new users accordingly. That has not been done. UUNET sold the bear before having killed him!!!

And now? UUNET is in a mess. Picking a few MB here and there, shaping a little bit more here, blocking a little bit here want help. A big cut has to be made and the whole marketing strategy needs to be revised. They cannot serve two masters at the same time. Not with their limited ressources.
Going only for the business customers (with the existing ressources) means imminent profit, yes. But that means the home-user market, which will increase much more then the business sector in future will be lost. Home-users, once they settled and happy with an ISP want change that easly, specially not after such a desaster with UUNET, which goes on for weeks now.

And on the other hand, going for the home-user market? No chance, not enough bandwith not without an tremendous upgrade (which is according to you too expensive). But people don't accept to be limited in their usage of their expensive ADSL, (we have being limited long enough from Telkom) especially not for the price we paying. Broadband has been invented for the download/uploads of large chunks of datas, videos, music, graphics, Radio-and TV streams, and not to forget p2p's. And there are more bandwith-hungry applications. Limiting everything? That cannot be the solution. South Africans ADSL users are much more sensitive now, then one or two years ago. (see this fast-growing forum, with a lot of competent people).

Solutions??? I am not an employee from UUNET, I am a simple user which paying his hard-earned cash into something of which I do not get what I paid for. And it is really unfair shifting all the blame on so-called "abusers". (This term has a bad taste for me, because they just did what everybody does). Bigger mistakes have been made long before the product came on the market.

I don't want to be in UUNET's skin right now....but I still defending UUNET, because I believe its a very honest and reliable company.

I rest my case right now, my daughter is shouting at me already...*ggg*
 
Last edited:
One of the biggest factors about telecomms here is the lack of education - people really are quite clueless as to the various options, but rewardingly, things are getting better.

ADSL is the buzz word now - or rather has been commercially for 18 months plus.
The expensive Diginet line in most cases can be replaced with something 1/4 of the price, albiet with restrictions, such as a silly 3gig cap.

But your Joe Savage has just heard that ADSL is the beezneez or that iBurst is the thing to go for - Vodacom3G seems to be known by all, but purely from a business perspective, with is what Vodacom were aiming for anyway. (damn clever beans up there in VodaWorld)

I'm hedging my bets on a combo of Vodacom and Telkom, because I'm a lilly livered coward - I see no other outcome. Maybe a bit of light SNOw in the background would twist my arm a bit, but I'm still sold on teh interweb by TekLom.
 
Last edited:
Are you? Your post here would indicate at least some dissatisfaction.
Click to expand...
Bwana, yeah I see this as a minor hiccup that can get fixed. The problem is it just stops responding after about 30 minutes. But I have great pings to WoW-US servers in comparison to saix-unshaped. Infact its a whole 200-300ms lower. If the minor problem gets fixed. I would love uunet to play games now as bt doesnt kill the service anymore.

Thats the other thing, many WoW gamers thought of uunet as a good alternative to telkoms service...man were they disgusted when the bt users killed it...
 
bb_matt said:
..damn clever beans up there in VodaWorld...
Click to expand...

arent they just.. I mean, "up there". Damn, the CEO's Pyramid office has to be be the coolest office on the planet...
 
warichard said:
UUNet has not downright blocked BitTorrent traffic, it is still shaped, it is merely shaped to a susbtantially smaller proportion of the link than it used to be.
Click to expand...

Semantics - if its shaped so much that its unusable then -IMO- its as good as being blocked. Torrents arent to blame for this whole situation - a serious lack of foresight on UUNets side caused this.
 
Last edited:
Well good news this weekend BT seems to be working but not at normal speed. Was working at 30K downloads where it normally sits at about 39-40K so I am happy. Pings are also stable and low. eDonkey works but I constantly get a LOWID but I am not behind a firewall. Turned off the routers firewall and running zonealarm.

Anyone know how to fix eDonkey, I have changed the ports but nothing seems to work. Speeds at around 7K downloading. Could always get around 25-40K.

Thanx
 
Karnaugh said:
BT is in general an incredibly losy and wastefull protocol. I think it was very ballsy and admirable for UUNet to drop it.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure how you can deem such an efficient protocol as being wasteful.
 
efficient? Do you have statistics of its efficiency? Compare your incomming bittorent client traffic with the data that is actualy saved to disk by the client.

Its self proclaimed "efficiency" only applies to the distribution of files, as it results in a natural balancing of network resources as parts are distributed from other peers. This doesnt save ISP's anything who have to deal with the traffic to the client, where you recieve far more unusable information than you would with say HTTP, or FTP.
 
Karnaugh said:
efficient? Do you have statistics of its efficiency? Compare your incomming bittorent client traffic with the data that is actualy saved to disk by the client.

Its self proclaimed "efficiency" only applies to the distribution of files, as it results in a natural balancing of network resources as parts are distributed from other peers. This doesnt save ISP's anything who have to deal with the traffic to the client, where you recieve far more unusable information than you would with say HTTP, or FTP.
Click to expand...
Self-proclaimed? Do your torrents talk to you?

Never the less – hard to make any comparisons as bit torrents have been so heavily shaped.
 
well with edonkey make sure you are downloading a file with more than 50 sources for one

search for the edonkey crack and register it.

you will be able to put you downloading to 400k and your uploading to 1k

might be unfair but its not my fault i live in a country where bandwidth is capped so i dont feel to bad :)

and i set it to 400k to make sure it goes full throttle
 
bwana said:
I'm not quite sure how you can deem such an efficient protocol as being wasteful.
Click to expand...


Bwana you are right, really. Some people are talking about issues, they don't even have a minor knowledge on. But its nice and sounds good just to sing the same song ...*gg*
 
Some people are talking about issues, they don't even have a minor knowledge on.
Click to expand...

Appologies. Obviosuly I have not pirated enough movies as yourself to gain this insightfull knowledge that I require to make educated comments about efficient bandwidth utilisation.
 
Karnaugh said:
Appologies. Obviosuly I have not pirated enough movies as yourself to gain this insightfull knowledge that I require to make educated comments about efficient bandwidth utilisation.
Click to expand...

Here comes again, what is your understanding of efficient bandwidth utilisation.
Calling up mails and do internet banking? Thats not why I am paying such an exorbitant price.

How do you know that I download pirated movies? Are you sitting on my shoulder?

btw. BT is more and more used from US governemnt sources (e.g. NASA) and even Microsoft makes use of it.

So better switch on your brain before you write....
 
Karnaugh, just remind youself what you just wrote. You are accusing people here of illegal downloads.

Isn't that an insult as well...?

Somebody wants to retaliate must accept to get an appropriate answer!
 
I dont find that to be an appropriate answer at all.

Of course maybe mine was not either, in response to "Some people are talking about issues, they don't even have a minor knowledge on." - unless that was not directed at me? Hard to tell on a forum, but I dont appreciate that kind of pretentious comment either and I find it insulting.

Regards,
 
Celemasiko, look we know you pay. BUT, if you knew some of the people on this forum in real life, you would know Karnaugh is one of the people that actually know more about internet protocols ect. Infact that is just the smallest amount of his total knoweldge of the inner workings or programs, programming theories and so on. I dont see why you have to think that he doesnt know anything. Sometimes I know I also wanna disagree with him, however sometimes its better to be mature (one would thought that a person of your age is mature but seems not) and learn something new from someone that knows more than you (even if that person is younger than you).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X