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
 
      11-11-2006
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:55:31 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> Aquilegia == Granny's Bonnets
> Alyssum == Mad Wort
>
> hmmm....


And they're lovely flowers.


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
 
 
 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
Aquilegia Alyssum wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:55:31 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> No, the ISP provides the full pipe all the time. The don't 'permit'
>> 1/10th of the data transfer speed. That is what they allocate to the
>> user. You don't get *a* 256kbps pipe. You get a 2560kbps pipe shared
>> with 10 others. That means that if everyone uses the pipe in the
>> traditional pattern, then everyone gets roughly the right bandwidth. If
>> someone leeches bandwidth, the rest of the users are compressed into the
>> remaining bandwidth.

>
> If you pay for 2560kbps then you should rightly expect to receive that
> data transfer speed any and all times that you wish to transfer data.
>

You don't. You pay a proportion of the cost. If you had to pay the full
cost it would be 10 times as expensive.
>
> It's not the user's fault that the ISP has badly miscalculated it's sums
> based on data from the dialup era.
>

This is not based on data from the dial up era. This is based on *now* data.

Cheers,

Cliff
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Earl Grey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
Aquilegia Alyssum wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:55:31 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Aquilegia == Granny's Bonnets
>> Alyssum == Mad Wort
>>
>> hmmm....

>
> And they're lovely flowers.
>
>
> Aquilegia Alyssum
>


Still using Microsoft Suse ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Earl Grey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-11-2006
Aquilegia Alyssum wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:11:05 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>> He means "Americanism" - meaning anything crass and boorish that emanates
>>> from the US of A.

>> The US of A is not A.

>
> "America" |= "North America"
>
> "America" |= "South America"
>
> "America" = common abrieviation of "The United States of America"
>
>
> Aquilegia Alyssum
>


Canadians use "Mom and Pop"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aquilegia Alyssum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:50:12 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

>> If you pay for 2560kbps then you should rightly expect to receive that
>> data transfer speed any and all times that you wish to transfer data.
>>

> You don't. You pay a proportion of the cost. If you had to pay the full
> cost it would be 10 times as expensive.


Bullshit!

The cost of transmitting data is being kept artificially high by Telecom
and the other owners of the Southern Cross cable - which still has plenty
of dark fibre and lit fibre which is still not coming anywhere close to
being fully utilised.

Also, as more people subscribe to the economies of scale kick in and costs
should reduce.

But what do we find? Telecom simply subscribing more and more people onto
the same bandwidth, rather than increasing capacity to keep the speed of
delivery at an acceptable level.


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
 
Aquilegia Alyssum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:50:12 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

>> It's not the user's fault that the ISP has badly miscalculated it's sums
>> based on data from the dialup era.
>>

> This is not based on data from the dial up era. This is based on *now* data.


Can't be - unless Telecom has seriously miscalculated. Why else in the P2P
era would Telecom be selling something it then simply does not deliver!


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
 
Waylon Kenning
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
T'was the Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:07:04 +1300 when I remembered Aquilegia
Alyssum <(E-Mail Removed)> saying something like this:

>The cost of transmitting data is being kept artificially high by Telecom
>and the other owners of the Southern Cross cable - which still has plenty
>of dark fibre and lit fibre which is still not coming anywhere close to
>being fully utilised.


Your point? You're quite free to lay your own cable you know.
--
Cheers,

Waylon Kenning.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
Aquilegia Alyssum wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:50:12 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> If you pay for 2560kbps then you should rightly expect to receive that
>>> data transfer speed any and all times that you wish to transfer data.
>>>

>> You don't. You pay a proportion of the cost. If you had to pay the full
>> cost it would be 10 times as expensive.

>
> Bullshit!
>
> The cost of transmitting data is being kept artificially high by Telecom
> and the other owners of the Southern Cross cable - which still has plenty
> of dark fibre and lit fibre which is still not coming anywhere close to
> being fully utilised.
>

That's different matter. Given the price of a pipe, If you want to use
it 100% of the time, instead of the more usual 2 - 3 % of the time, you
should pay more (of the current arguably extortionate cost).
>
> Also, as more people subscribe to the economies of scale kick in and costs
> should reduce.
>
> But what do we find? Telecom simply subscribing more and more people onto
> the same bandwidth, rather than increasing capacity to keep the speed of
> delivery at an acceptable level.
>

No, I don't believe that they are doing that. What evidence do you have
that they are?

Cheers,

Cliff
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
Aquilegia Alyssum wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:50:12 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> It's not the user's fault that the ISP has badly miscalculated
>>> it's sums based on data from the dialup era.
>>>

>> This is not based on data from the dial up era. This is based on
>> *now* data.

>
> Can't be - unless Telecom has seriously miscalculated. Why else in
> the P2P era would Telecom be selling something it then simply does
> not deliver!
>

A very few people actually do P2P.

Cheers,

Cliff
 
Reply With Quote
 
tylernz@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-12-2006
> > Also, as more people subscribe to the economies of scale kick in and costs
> > should reduce.
> >
> > But what do we find? Telecom simply subscribing more and more people onto
> > the same bandwidth, rather than increasing capacity to keep the speed of
> > delivery at an acceptable level.
> >

> No, I don't believe that they are doing that. What evidence do you have
> that they are?



Cliff, Telecom are indeed doing this.

What most people don't realise was that JetStream was "unleashed" when
it first came out in 1999, wind forward a few years, and Telecom's
JetStream network started getting rather full, they had too many users
and not enough backhaul capacity to get the data to the ISP's and Xtra.


To fix this they simply halved everyones connections to 3.5Megabits, in
effect doubling the backhaul capacity of their network (as you could
now put twice as many half speed connections on it), and kept piling on
more connections. No capital needed! (at times like this, it's sweet to
be a monopoly

Wind forward a few years and the Commerce Commission then rules that
Telecom had to supply connections without any artifical limitations or
restraints. Telecom had to "unleash their network" (back to the
original 1999 speeds we were getting! Xtraordinary!)

Well... Suddenly after "unleashed", there were huge issues with the
broadband network nationwide, people complaining of dialup speeds on
their connections etc.

I had one client which was getting dialup speeds to Xtra's offical
speed testing site (www.jetstreamgames.co.nz/speed) but they were
physically connecting at 7 Megabits to the exchange.

Another problem which was revealed during all this was that the
backhaul for broadband what shared between ALL the ISP's. So Xtra's
customers on a exchange could slowdown ihugs, or ihugs would affect
orcons etc.

[Question for those employees of ISP's which get to sit in the NOC
chair, did Telecom tell you this is how your backhaul was to be
provisioned, or was it quite a suprise?]

More evidence for you - search for mt eden or titirangi exchange
problems, or mini DSLAM's.

Some exchanges were simply melting under the load, and these exchanges
had been problematic before the Unleashing.These exchanges (and a lot
the others) capacity should have been upgraded before unleashed was
done.

Another issue is the Conkin mini-DSLAM's only support a 4 Megabits
backhaul, and they can have 7 ADSL connections. Do the math, Telecom
are actually advertising and selling a service they technically know
they cannot supply.

Other exchanges like piha (last time I checked), and especially rural
areas don't even have fiber to them yet, so Telecom are very limited
for backhaul capacity.They couldn't simply double it, which would be
required to allow for the 'unleashed' connections to not be
constricted.

So yes, Telecom are simply subscribing more people onto the same
bandwidth. They tactically admit this by only giving their broadband
connections a CIR 24bps (half that of a dialup connection.)

Yes thats right, the only speed guarentee Telecom will give you for
your broadband connection is HALF THAT OF A DIALUP CONNECTION. or 140
times slower that the speed your can potentially connect at.

The most amusing thing, is that we are having these issues on the
*national* backhaul, this isn't a problem with not enough international
capacity etc. Telecom simply can't get your data from your house to
your ISP as 'fast as you can physically connect'

Someone should really tell their marketing department.

Tyler Rosolowski



http://10layers.com/2006/04/contenti...scam-revealed/

 
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