RIP Usenet

[Trooper110]

R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008 - Columns by PC Magazine

[Rand{CLR}]

I just checked last week, and I still have Usenet through Comcast. I hope they don't drop it just to get rid of the binaries groups. That's just stupid.

-Rand

[Trooper110]

I just checked last week, and I still have Usenet through Comcast. I hope they don't drop it just to get rid of the binaries groups. That's just stupid.

-Rand

That's today's ISPs for you...in a word....stupid. With the crap in New York, I don't think it will be long before they start eliminating access. All to stop child porn and warez of course....not because of bandwidth or drive space things takes up.

[Zantheus]

Yea I heard they were going to do that in the US...I think we will still be fine up here in Canada though

[juneau]

Talk about going over the top. Yes there is CP problems, but where on the web isn't this problem prevalent? Should we just kill the web entirely? Just the same ol' story of power weilding jerks not thinking about their actions, and how it will affect the honest person.

Saying that, UK ISP's usenet has been a joke for years, ever since the alt.binaries groups emerged. Premium Usenet ftw!!

[Murder Simulator]

It's just more meddling by big time ISPs. Same as throttling bittorrent. they are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of customers any way they can. Premium access for usenet indeed.

There are a lot of legitimate groups for discussion and such stuff. The P2P part of it will just morph into something different anyway. Perverts know how to adapt like the rest of us.

Pretty sad.........

[{CLR}geneSW]

It's just more meddling by big time ISPs. Same as throttling bittorrent. they are trying to squeeze every last dollar out of customers any way they can. Premium access for usenet indeed.

There are a lot of legitimate groups for discussion and such stuff. The P2P part of it will just morph into something different anyway. Perverts know how to adapt like the rest of us.

Pretty sad.........

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[mapes]

Actually I totally understand why an ISP doesn't want to run a NNTP server. I wouldn't.

[juneau]

Actually I totally understand why an ISP doesn't want to run a NNTP server. I wouldn't.

Reasons?

[mapes]

Speaks volumes...Not in my data center

Newsgroups had exchanged code along with text for years, but by the late '90s the "binaries" groups began taking up huge amounts of space and Net traffic, and since Usenet libraries reside on each ISP's server, service providers sensibly started to wonder why they should be reserving big chunks of their own disk space for pirated movies and repetitive porn.

[juneau]

Speaks volumes...Not in my data center

I knew it would be bandwidth. Usenet is not all piracy you know. My ISP has recently started a good NNTP service with pretty decent completion and retention. They have it right imo. All data transfered is internal.

[mapes]

I knew it would be bandwidth. Usenet is not all piracy you know. My ISP has recently started a good NNTP service with pretty decent completion and retention. They have it right imo. All data transfered is internal.

I don't really care about whats on there but, the bandwidth.....

[juneau]

I don't really care about whats on there but, the bandwidth.....

Do you agree caps are a good thing then?

Lack of bandwidth and caps in my experience of UK ISP's is down to under funded over subscribed networks (i bet this is the same in the US too). Pretty much all UBR's that my ISP uses are over subscribed and have been for years. They have put a new soft cap in place now that gives you a max upload and download limit between certain times. If you go over these limits your connection speed is cut to 25% for a few hours, which in my case would be 5mb.

They are however rolling out a new docsis3 config next year once the 50mb connection trials are over. All 50mb and 20mb users will be on docsis3 to relieve pressure from the 10mb and 2mb users who will continue to use the old docsis2 platform. Then the soft cap will be reduced or removed completely.

IMO considering is almost 2010, bandwidth should no longer be an issue. Especially as the future of the internet is becoming very clear.

[mapes]

I think that a provider should be able to implement bandwidth caps if they're are up front and honest about it. If it's not hidden and there is enough competition in the market so that it becomes a factor for competitors looking to differentiate themselves.

Personally the whole comcast bit torrent thing I don't care about. Where they messed up is they were not honest nor was it spelled out in the contract except for "Your service may change in future" boiler plate text.


My personal experience with bit torrent clients. Had a roommate who constantly used BT. While he only allowed like five inbound connections and throttled them to 2k a piece there was still issues. While the damn BT client was running it still lagged me terribly in game.

So I started sniffing the connection. It turns out that when your client registers with the BT directory service it does not tell the directory server how many inbound connections it'll accept. So although his client was only servicing 5 connections 50 million people were trying to connect to his box with a tcp session. Since I was reverse NATing his box my router was being DoS'd by a million in bound tcpp connections getting written into the NAT table. Although it is a 5K USD enterprise router this still greatly affected it. I basically wrote a firewall rule so he could never register with the directory server. He could still download but never upload.


My bandwidth......I'm the type of person who has enterprise wifi gear and I jam anyone trying to use channel 11 on 802.11 (by spoofed deassociation frames) around my house.......MY BANDWIDTH

[juneau]

I think that a provider should be able to implement bandwidth caps if they're are up front and honest about it. If it's not hidden and there is enough competition in the market so that it becomes a factor for competitors looking to differentiate themselves.

Personally the whole comcast bit torrent thing I don't care about. Where they messed up is they were not honest nor was it spelled out in the contract except for "Your service may change in future" boiler plate text.


My personal experience with bit torrent clients. Had a roommate who constantly used BT. While he only allowed like five inbound connections and throttled them to 2k a piece there was still issues. While the damn BT client was running it still lagged me terribly in game.

So I started sniffing the connection. It turns out that when your client registers with the BT directory service it does not tell the directory server how many inbound connections it'll accept. So although his client was only servicing 5 connections 50 million people were trying to connect to his box with a tcp session. Since I was reverse NATing his box my router was being DoS'd by a million in bound tcpp connections getting written into the NAT table. Although it is a 5K USD enterprise router this still greatly affected it. I basically wrote a firewall rule so he could never register with the directory server. He could still download but never upload.


My bandwidth......I'm the type of person who has enterprise wifi gear and I jam anyone trying to use channel 11 on 802.11 (by spoofed deassociation frames) around my house.......MY BANDWIDTH

I must admit BT is really bad for this. It really should be more configurable. And hopefulyl one day it will be considering a lot of distribution giants are heading this way.

You likes the bandwidth.

The main reason i dislike hard caps whether they're stated in the T&C's or not is that they're so puny. 30GB a month? (This appears to be the average for UK ISP's that use caps). I could do twice that and be downloading nothing but legal material. In fact i probably do that easily with just 1080p trailers per month. When they start making 100GB+ caps i'll agree that it's an ok idea.