🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:15:18 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:17:12 -0000, Chris Caputo <ccaputo@alt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> engineer2 <engineer2@the.lab> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:25:40 +0000, Chris Caputo wrote:
>>>>>> Taking into account our lower retention, if we offered $12/month
>>>>>> unthrottled, with SSL and 10 streams, would that be reasonable?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've noticed that the number of simultaneous connections (streams?)
>>>>> seems to be important to people, but I've never understood the reason.
>>>>
>>>> I imagine the reasons vary.
>>>>
>>>> With multiple connections you can download binaries in one group while
>>>> browsing text messages in another, for example.
>>>>
>>>>> Does each one of your simultaneous connections add another increment of
>>>>> throttled bandwidth?  Other than that, I can't see any advantage.
>>>>
>>>> On our throttled connections, although our terms indicate that bandwidth
>>>> is distributed across parallel connections, I haven't found it necessary
>>>> to actually implement that and enforce it.  Therefore, on our throttled
>>>> offerings, multiple connections will actually increase overall
>>>> throughput.
>>>>
>>>> In general, with TCP performance testing, I find that a single
>>>> unthrottled stream is best able to utilize available bandwidth.  Others
>>>> may disagree or have more scientific input.
>>>
>>> My newsreader downloads using four connections.  I usually get exactly the
>>> bandwidth I've paid for, not four times that.  Occasionally at non-peak
>>> times it goes a lot higher, but I assume it's not being limited at those
>>> times.
>>
>> That's a reasonably safe assumption, though it could be buffer under-run
>> compensation.
> 
> It's My ISP doing traffic shaping.  Avoid Plusnet.

I did some traffic shaping, once.  Avoid linux.

> 
>>>>> I've read that even ISP's are considering usage-based accounts (to
>>>>> penalize you binaries junkies who download 24/7 from unthrottled NSP's
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Some ISP's are rumored to be heading in that direction, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> ISP's frequently buy from backbones using a 95th percentile method of
>>>> billing, so bringing usage billing down to the consumer may be tempting
>>>> for some business models.
>>>
>>> My ISP has an x GB per month for y amount of cash, plus can choose to pay
>>> more per GB if you go over the limit, or have it just stop working.
>>
>> Sweet!
> 
> Except for the usenet speed.  Although I could pay more for the gold band.....

Is that GSM, or LTE?
-- 
ah