Internet Related Topic

  • Thread starter Not Bman
  • https://www.osnn.net/admin.php?templates/thread_view.1970/delete&_xfRedirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osnn.net%2Fadmin.php%3Ftemplates%2Foutdated Start date
N

Not Bman

Guest
So Canada sucks for Internet, or at least Ottawa.

I have gone through and researched almost every company around my location. The best you can get for a good price and speed is from Rogers.

10Mbps (1.2Megabytes/second) is 54.95/month (plus many extra fees) Plus a $25 overcharge fee if you go over 95GB/month. Which I do everytime. You could buy there next level up which is 18Mbps (about 2Megabytes/second) and everything else the same for $99.99/month, rip off.

Any company that is providing Unlimited bandwidth has services around 5Mbps or lower, which is crap. Also any good high speed fiber optics is business only, and even if I could get it it would be 100's of dollars a month.

I want to move lol
 

LordOfLA

Godlike!
Joined
2 Feb 2004
Messages
7,026
I suggest Hong Kong, South Korea or Japan for broadband :)

Shared gigabit fibre :) you get a share of 125MB/sec download rate (more or less depending on other residents using or not) for the equivalent of around US$50
 

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political Access
Joined
12 Jan 2004
Messages
5,015
Johnny..... Megabits aren't Megabytes. a 10 Mbps connection has a maximum download bandwidth of 1 MB/s. 1 Mbps = 100 KB/s

In other words.... you'd need a 100 Mbps connection to download 10 MB/s

10Mbps has a download speed of 1.2MB/sec max

10Mbps = 10240 Kilobits per second / 8 = 1280 kilobytes/second = 1.2 Megabytes per second.

Someone here can't do math (yes I ignored the last 3 numbers)

Data transfer speeds are measured in powers of 2, so everything is a multiple of 1024 for bytes which you multiply by 8 to get bits.

My apologies, I was confusing bits with bytes ... :disappointed::disappointed:

I still say dsl sucks - I can't wait to get my 50 meg connection :)
 

Admiral Michael

OSNN Veteran Addict
Joined
19 Feb 2003
Messages
3,123
So Canada sucks for Internet, or at least Ottawa.

I have gone through and researched almost every company around my location. The best you can get for a good price and speed is from Rogers.

10Mbps (1.2Megabytes/second) is 54.95/month (plus many extra fees) Plus a $25 overcharge fee if you go over 95GB/month. Which I do everytime. You could buy there next level up which is 18Mbps (about 2Megabytes/second) and everything else the same for $99.99/month, rip off.

Any company that is providing Unlimited bandwidth has services around 5Mbps or lower, which is crap. Also any good high speed fiber optics is business only, and even if I could get it it would be 100's of dollars a month.

I want to move lol

What's the point with having a fast download speed when you have a bandwidth cap?

I'll stick to my 5mbit/800kbit 200GB limit for $29.95/month connection (I do have the option of a unlimited limit for 39.95 but I don't usually hit 200GB).

A faster connection would be nice but if there is a limit then what's the point. Last month I use 105.86GB :p
 
N

Not Bman

Guest
If you read my first post, I was looking for faster and unlimited lol
 

Dark Atheist

OSNN Veteran Addict
Political Access
Joined
8 Apr 2003
Messages
6,376
in my post i was giving you rough download speeds as you will never get the true due to network congestion plus the return upstream

simple rule is divide it by 10 and you get your rough speed
 

mlakrid

OSNN BASSMASTER
Political Access
Joined
15 Feb 2005
Messages
2,346
Uh... it has nothing to do with dsl, it has to do with tcp/ip adding a header for each router your packet(s) go through per transmit block. This has the effect of reducing the number of bytes available for actual data out of the 1500bytes available per packet.

There is also padding added to aid out-of-order reconstruction of fragmented packets too.

If this was not the case I'd be able to download at 1.4Mbps from US based servers :)

Technically this is not entirely true...

First it depends on how big the associated packets are...

Also, only each router which does not have a corresponding router in its routing table would add on additional header information...

If a network is setup correctly, (dependent upon which ROUTER protocol is used) OSPF (open shortest path first) is the most common still today, and provided one router in the UK has a router in the US in its routing table... then it should oly need the information for the known destination router which shares information of the two distant ends...

Then you should be able to do what you said on the last line in your statement... the ONLY reason you cant (more than likely) you are not using one of the terrestrial fibers connecting the UK to the US...

Instead you are ... again... (more than likely) connecting via a sattelite which is the easiet way... the problem is, like you already hinted too... is latency...

Almost any bird traffic (comms lingo for sattelite) will take between 600-800 milliseconds, and some as much as 1 full second on a round trip time (RTT)

If you are however on a terrestrial fiber... which I found an easy target which should be in the UK:

Pinging yahoo.com/uk [24.28.193.9] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 24.28.193.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=109
Reply from 24.28.193.9: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=109
Reply from 24.28.193.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=109
Reply from 24.28.193.9: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=109
Ping statistics for 24.28.193.9:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 65ms, Maximum = 67ms, Average = 65ms

You should get almost ZERO lag and additional headers... making the transfer as fast as the weakeset link in that routing chain ... like you see above... unless that the UK server for yahoo is hosted here in the states... which would be entirely possible...

Sometimes, I love being a Geek... :laugh:

Mike A!
 

ElementalDragon

The One and Only
Joined
8 Aug 2002
Messages
3,159
Admiral Michael - i know something worse than having a fast connection and a bandwidth cap. Having a fast connection and a bandwidth cap that's basically based on the usage of everyone else in the area. If i use more bandwidth than like 95% of the people in the area.... i get a letter saying my usage will be monitored, and if the same pattern continues, i'd either have to upgrade to a faster service, upgrade to a commercial package, or be disconnected. That usually happens if i creep too far over 50GB/month. REALLY easy to hit that limit on 15Mbit.

The even BIGGER kick in the balls.... i talked to someone at the cable company... and they told me that even if i were to upgrade to a faster internet connection (back when i was on 5Mbit), if i would have a higher monthly bandwidth limit. the guy said that it wouldn't change anything. I actually said to the guy "So in other words, the letter i recieve from the ISP is basically saying either pay for commercial or get the boot?" to which he replied "pretty much".

It's freakin ridiculous. I'm a gamer.... and i tend to download my fair share of stuff be it games on Steam, or beta software/games.... and i live in a town where... i'm pretty sure there AREN'T that many gamers or heavy downloaders. probably quite a lot of old people actually.
 

LordOfLA

Godlike!
Joined
2 Feb 2004
Messages
7,026
You should get almost ZERO lag and additional headers... making the transfer as fast as the weakeset link in that routing chain ... like you see above... unless that the UK server for yahoo is hosted here in the states... which would be entirely possible...

The various routing protocols always confuse me. I never understand how people can get a packet from poiint a to point b via x other points without telling the next device along where it came from.

Unless each router on the way strips off the previous in-transit info and keeps it logged so that it knows where it needs to go on the way back.

As to the bit I quoted. If you're getting < 100ms to a .uk site either it is not in the UK or you're living in new york which is where most of the UK <> US fibre links up. A lot of which used to run via the WTC until someone remoddeled.
 

mlakrid

OSNN BASSMASTER
Political Access
Joined
15 Feb 2005
Messages
2,346
The various routing protocols always confuse me. I never understand how people can get a packet from poiint a to point b via x other points without telling the next device along where it came from.

Unless each router on the way strips off the previous in-transit info and keeps it logged so that it knows where it needs to go on the way back.

As to the bit I quoted. If you're getting < 100ms to a .uk site either it is not in the UK or you're living in new york which is where most of the UK <> US fibre links up. A lot of which used to run via the WTC until someone remoddeled.

I hear you Lord... Thats why I used OSPF as the protocol since it is still the most used...

As to your question that is EXACTLY how it works... each router along the path has a routing table where it keeps tabs on the routers which it uses most... (normally 16 hops max in each direction but this is set by the network administrator and can be as high as 65535 if the OSPF protocal is used and all 16 bits have a value = 1)

Most notably... if you have permissions on a network and you consistently perform a traceroute, you will see a pattern of routers used to move your traceroute package around...

This is the same path (more likely than not) that your information will take, provided you know the distant end routers IP address...

OSPF is also the easiest router protocol to learn...

Mike A!
 

fitz

Woah.. I'm still here?
Political Access
Joined
26 Apr 2004
Messages
4,084
EIGRP is a PIA..

Once we get some other things sorted later this year, I'm moving us off EIGRP and over to OSPF - should hopefully happen early next year.
 

mlakrid

OSNN BASSMASTER
Political Access
Joined
15 Feb 2005
Messages
2,346
OSPF has its faults too...

dont think that moving from EIGRP to OSPF is the answer (neccessarily) it depends on WHY you want to move from one protocol to the other...

My point is dont trade an orange for a lemon... go with the protocol that will allow you the flexibility you want and the sturdiness to accept future changes

Mike A!
 

fitz

Woah.. I'm still here?
Political Access
Joined
26 Apr 2004
Messages
4,084
Certainly each protocol has it's faults and advantages. But as our network has grown and we start looking at the possibility of using non-Cisco equipment at some locations, it has driven us to look more at OSPF instead of EIGRP.
 

LordOfLA

Godlike!
Joined
2 Feb 2004
Messages
7,026
when I worked at coreix all I ever heard of was BGP and OSPF.. I never touched the routers and routing on an ISP scale I could never wrap my head around so have no clue if anything else was used.
 

Members online

Latest forum posts

Latest profile posts

Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.
Terrahertz wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Yo fellas!
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Where are you buddy?

Forum statistics

Threads
62,002
Messages
673,449
Members
5,597
Latest member
Mesapplis