Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Orcon's email servers in a spam blocklist

Reply
Thread Tools

Orcon's email servers in a spam blocklist

 
 
Aquilegia Alyssum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:10:10 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> Ruidh Bhab et Criem wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:16:31 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>>> You pay for a connection. The fact that the ISP is ripping people off by
>>>> having seriously "over subscribed" the available bandwidth causing
>>>> people to not get what they've paid for only shows that the ISP has no
>>>> interest in delivering a high quality service.
>>>>
>>> That's like saying that if 100 cars per minute pass along a motorway
>>> that the motorway should be 100 cars wide because they all might come
>>> along at the same time.

>>
>> No.
>>
>> It's like saying "we sell you the ability to drive 100 cars per minute
>> through our tunnel at any time you wish. We also are selling everybody
>> else the same ability to drive 100 cars per minute through our tunnel at
>> on the same terms as you."
>>

> You persist in leaving out a bit.


Incorrect.

The bad and poorly chosen assuptions of connectivity-providing monopolites
is not something that the general public needs to factor into their
thinking of what they are purchasing.

Times have changed. People are no longer wanting the Internet only for
viewing a few web pages and sending a few emails every now and again. They
are wanting it for P2P, gaming, listening to radio stations with at least
something resembling reasonable audio quality, etc.

Telecom's assumptions are based on the dialup ages, and need to be moved
into the 22nd (rather than 19th) century.


> A network company makes the assumption
> that not everyone will drive their 300 cars through the tunnel at the
> same time. It's a legitimate assumption born out of their collecting
> statistics over time.


Statistics based on usage patterns during the dialup age hardly are
relevant to usage in the broadband era.


>> Well hit me over the head wtih a 4x2, but that means the tunnel should be
>> CAPABLE of delivering what has been sold. And that means if 300 persons
>> have been sold the means to drive 100 cars per minute through that
>> tunnel at any time they wish, then 300 persons should be able to avail
>> themselves of that capability as per the terms of the sale agreement,
>> namely "at any time you wish", and that tunnel should, therefore, be
>> capable of meeting that requirement.
>>

> So the tunnel has to be 300 cars wide....


Actually it should be wide enough to enable 30,000 cars per minute if it
wants to ensure all it's customers will get the service that they've
purchased on the terms that they've been "guaranteed".


>> The problem is, that Telecom thinks that providing a network with only 1/4
>> or even less (1:150 contention) capacity to meet the contracted bandwidth
>> requirements is actually acceptable - which it clearly is not!!
>>

> There are two factors to network usage - bandwidth (the width of the
> tunnel) and the traffic (the number of cars per second going into the
> tunnel). If the tunnel is 10 cars wide then 10 people can insert a car
> each second. If there are 100 users of the tunnel, and the insertion
> rate is 10 cars/second on average then on average some cars will be
> slightly delayed, but on average it will work.
>
> If now someone tries to put in a car per second, there will be more
> serious contention. On average 1 out of 10 cars will be delayed. If two
> people put in one car a second then 1 in 5 cars will be delayed.


Duh! The problem is that Telecom does not have the infrastructure to
provide the data transmission speeds at anything even close to what it has
sold.


Aquilegia Alyssum

--
"The only way Vista client and Longhorn server would make sense
would be if [the] company was doing a 'forklift upgrade' on its
entire client-server infrastructure."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
El Chippy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

"Aquilegia Alyssum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed) sum...
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:10:10 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
> Actually it should be wide enough to enable 30,000 cars per minute if it
> wants to ensure all it's customers will get the service that they've
> purchased on the terms that they've been "guaranteed".



guaranteed? care to point out where telecom or any other NZ isp gaurantees
you any minimum performance on DSL?

DSL is usually (and always on telecoms network) a best effort service...
this mean if it breaks/doesn't perform well they will fix it.. when they get
round to it, Its pretty much the lowest priority on the jobs list.


You want better than that? get a connection with a SLA and a stated CIR and
burstable speed. WARNING: this will seriously deplete your pocket money.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aquilegia Alyssum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:48:06 +1300, El Chippy wrote:

> "Aquilegia Alyssum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed) sum...
>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:10:10 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>> Actually it should be wide enough to enable 30,000 cars per minute if it
>> wants to ensure all it's customers will get the service that they've
>> purchased on the terms that they've been "guaranteed".

>
>
> guaranteed? care to point out where telecom or any other NZ isp gaurantees
> you any minimum performance on DSL?
>
> DSL is usually (and always on telecoms network) a best effort service...
> this mean if it breaks/doesn't perform well they will fix it.. when they get
> round to it, Its pretty much the lowest priority on the jobs list.
>
>
> You want better than that? get a connection with a SLA and a stated CIR and
> burstable speed. WARNING: this will seriously deplete your pocket money.


Yes - I see that now. Getting what has been advertised is something that
people should not expect from ISPs - even tho' everybody when buying
ANYTHING else has the protection of the consumer guarantees act. This part
of NZ law does not apply to ISPs - especially not to Telecom/Xtra.


Aquilegia Alyssum

--
"The only way Vista client and Longhorn server would make sense
would be if [the] company was doing a 'forklift upgrade' on its
entire client-server infrastructure."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Spyware Blocklist and other stuff posted sponge Computer Security 8 03-30-2005 07:34 AM
Security Blocklist Converter 2.16 YK Computer Security 0 07-08-2003 01:20 PM



Advertisments