WBS' Transparent Proxy...

  • Thread starter Thread starter ic
  • Start date Start date
ic

ic

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
14,812
Reaction score
268
Location
A nearby event horizon
This is a thread to inspire some discussion amongst forumites [not just iBursters - any & all forumites], about whether or not we iBursters really want/need a Transparent Proxy from WBS...

It has previously been suggest by someone, that WBS should turn off the Transparency, and give iBursters an incentive to use a non-Transparent Proxy from WBS, the proposed incentive being that proxied bandwidth does not count towards the cap...

Just one disadvantage of WBS' Transparent Proxy Server - [post=219671]only WBS can bypass their own Transparent Proxy Server to vote in the MyADSL Main Site Polls[/post]...like this one:

Or perhaps WBS would prefer to continue to vote for themselves without letting customers vote as well...?

So, what does everyone think...?
 
funny mentioning that, I was wondering aswell why 52% for iburst.. seems bit cooked up. :)
 
I think you're giving this forum way way waaaay too much credit, most of thier customers don't even visit this site and I'd like to think my ISP has better things to do with thier time than vote for themselves on some poll most of thier customers will never even see.
 
Last edited:
slimothy said:
I think you're giving this forum way way waaaay too much credit, most of thier customers don't even visit this site and I'd like to think my ISP has better things to do with thier time than vote for themselves on some poll most of thier customers will never even see.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that is the very same poll that Thami Mtshali - head of WBS had bookmarked in his notebook's browser on 2005-04-04, when he held a press conference to launch iBurst, and he made a big point of how WBS was 'leading the way' with customer service in a MyADSL poll.

Incidentally, that was the second time that Thami referred to a MyADSL Main Site poll that showed WBS' iBurst in a positive light.

Not once has Thami referred to the MyADSL Broadband Ratings Report of March 2005, which is starkly at odds with those main site polls. Draw your own conclusions...

Anyways, the point of this thread, is to discuss the whole Transparent Proxy that WBS has forced on its customers.

I personally would rather use the Proxy voluntarily to conserve bandwidth [both mine and WBS'] when and if I feel like it, rather than be hampered by the thing being forced upon me. There is a FireFox extension that allows you to have instant control over multiple proxies, I haven't used it, but I would certainly use a non-Transparent Proxy from WBS, for some things, if cached proxy traffic didn't count towards my bandwidth cap.

We know that voting in MyADSL Main Site polls is one thing we cannot do thanks to WBS' Transparent Proxy, another issue is performing Upload Speed Tests when a Transparent Proxy is in place, for instance does not work with LSM - that's likely to hurt WBS more than us customers bcos it will have to be reflected in the next MyADSL Broadband Ratings Report - Upload Speed: Unknown due to WBS' Transparent Proxy Server...

What else?
 
Transparent proxies are unfortunately a way of life in South Africa. Even Telkom has them. Every major ISP has them.

I don't think lobbying to get it removed, or made non-transparent is going to achieve anything. In my view, it just won't happen.
 
I still cannot login to Slashdot from work - this is just another problem with Transparent Proxies, so it's not just WBS having issues.

This IP address or network has been used to abuse the system and logins from it have been disabled. If you feel that this is unwarranted, feel free to include your IP address (198.54.202.114) in the subject of an email to [email protected], and we will examine why there is a ban. If you fail to include the IP address (again, in the subject!), then your message will be deleted and ignored. I mean come on, we're good, we're not psychic.
Click to expand...

198.54.202.114 -> http://www.samspade.org/t/lookat?a=198.54.202.114
 
This is what I am talking about, as an iBurster, I want to know exactly what does not work thanks to WBS' Transparent Proxy, and campaigning for turning the Proxy into a voluntary & non-transparent forced thing, is secondary to my need to know what else I cannot use WBS' iBurst for on the Internet...:)

Also, I'm sure consumers interested in iBurst would also find this info interesting [now that's campaigning]...:D
 
oh yeah they just paid for terrabytes of space and proxy servers and they're gonna remove it because you said so, don't be ridiculous, cache is the most effective means for saving costs on thier side, they're not gonna drop it.

however having said that, you can use other proxies which may not be seen as proxies depending on the scanner on whatever site you're visiting, HTTP or Socks proxies
 
This site don't allow users on proxy here!
Your Proxy ip: 198.54.202.218
Your ip: 165.165.133.31
powered whit Protector System



It's TELKOM folks - it's not WBS.
Stop worrying, there's more than one type of internet access that goes through the same gateways.

inetnum: 198.54.202.0 - 198.54.202.255
netname: SAIX-CACHE
descr: Telkom SA Ltd.


Welcome to the reality, iBurst users - your bandwidth is Telkom bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
Nope, the local cases I'm referring to, all have the following IP:
Code: 
196.2.127.9 (cache-01.jhb.wbs.co.za)
 
thanx for the thread IC but what i REALLY would like would be a separate Forum for Conspiracy Theories ....

WretchedToad :D :D :D
 
I agree they should make it volentary BUT they won't and can't afford for some idiots not to be using it, Besides Why would they hand out the bandwidth it saves them free to customers when they can charge like they do.

Bottomline: Change the posts to require some form of login or email address entered rather than log Ip addresses!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X