|
bunnyofdoom posted:I have been without internet access at home since this morning. But TekSavvy updated to say Ontario routing issues are fixed an hour ago. I still have to reload most pages several times before I see anything.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
teethgrinder posted:Really? You think it was deliberate sabotage? As far as I know it could have been a construction issue, or some junkie or whatever. Not so much deliberate, but yes, I feel like the fact that they didn't send someone to look until 1:30 really smacks of them dragging their feet./
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
This is interesting http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/07/17/technology-gigabit-internet-olds.html quote:Ultrafast internet speeds that most Canadian city dwellers can only dream of will soon be available to all 8,500 residents in a rural Alberta community for as little as $57 a month, thanks to a project by the town's non-profit economic development foundation. slidebite fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jul 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Thats pretty incredible for them to just say gently caress it, we'll do it ourselves and it'll be better then anything in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
So at $14M to install that means it will cost every person in town about $1650. Considering not everybody is going to pay for those services that makes it a pretty lengthy RoE. If it's even possible to ever break even with that? If the average household has 3 people that ups the cost to almost $5000 per subscriber, if every household subscribes. I guess if every household pays an average of $70/month it would only take about 6 years to pay for that (assuming no upkeep/interest costs). Maybe there's government grants and such that bring that cost down though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
The article notes a 2.5 million dollar grant from the province, which would take a bite out of things. It's meant to be heavily used by the college, who will probably pay heftily for the service, and businesses seem to buy in at five grand a month too. If there are outfits sending USB keys via courier because the town's bandwidth was poo poo, there's probably some demand for that service bracket. But yeah, if they were just selling residential service, that would be a different story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
In more Teksavvy is the best news They slashed prices in response to Rogers BS about unlimited plans. As well, they applied it to all their customers with their service. They did not call people up and say "You need a new service to get cheaper" and actually notified all those it applied too that their bill would be lower. God, I hope they continue being awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:In more Teksavvy is the best news They slashed prices in response to Rogers BS about unlimited plans. As well, they applied it to all their customers with their service. They did not call people up and say "You need a new service to get cheaper" and actually notified all those it applied too that their bill would be lower. This happened in March. I thought they did something awesome again 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
EngineerJoe posted:This happened in March. I thought they did something awesome again Oh. Sorry, I got the email yesterday from them. I thought it was recent as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Anyone know what Teksavvy service is like in the London, Ontario area these days? I'm on Rogers with a Docsis 2 modem I bought years ago, and I'm only getting 90 gig of the 120 I should per month because they're using the higher cap as a carrot for upgrading to docsis 3 devices. I'm trying to decide if it's more worth my while to drop $100 on a new Rogers modem for another 30 gigs of bandwidth (which, even given my housemate's discovery of video on demand and full-length movies on Youtube, would probably be more than comfortable), or spend $200 on fees to switch to Teksavvy and a different new modem, get their $60ish unlimited plan, and run the risk of Rogers dragging their feet whenever the network goes pear shaped. Much as I'd like to stick it to Rogers, and unlimited bandwidth would be nice, both of us start to get twitchy when the network goes down, and she sometimes uses a VPN to work from home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Teksavvy uses Rogers for their last-mile, so if your Rogers connection has been reliable Teksavvy should be equally so. With that said, Teksavvy in London has been absolutely rock-solid for me. I've had them for about three years now and I can only recount a few times where there was an unexpected service outage, and of those only one lasted longer than a half-hour. They just rolled out new infrastructure in London to support their new ATPIA packages and I haven't had any problems with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Start's unlimited plans are cheaper than Teksavvy's in most locations. Their standard plans are similar speeds but with lower usage limits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Thanks! And cool, looks like I'll have something to chat with the housemate about. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Hmm, am I right in understanding that Start.ca doesn't offer unlimited at higher speeds? The site implies you need to sit at 6Mbit for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
For DSL, yes, but we were talking about cable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Is Rogers/Start.ca's internet going ok for everyone lately? For the last few days it appears that the speeds are considerably lower. I have the 150Mbps package, and instead of the 10-15MB/s that normally i get, im down to 1-2MB/s. If i do a simple wget from uwaterloo's mirror of something, I get at most 200KB/s. Maybe it's just at peak time. Web browsing doesnt seem to be affected, but the download speeds are quite a bit lower. I thought about calling them (and if this persists I certainly will), but I'm just curious if it's just me (maybe my modem would be to blame, a Thomson DCM475) or there's something going on in the waterloo area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
rhag posted:Is Rogers/Start.ca's internet going ok for everyone lately? For the last few days it appears that the speeds are considerably lower. I have the 150Mbps package, and instead of the 10-15MB/s that normally i get, im down to 1-2MB/s. If i do a simple wget from uwaterloo's mirror of something, I get at most 200KB/s. uwaterloo's servers are pretty slow, I usually max out around there if I try to pull anything from them. What's your setup like when downloading? Are you wired in directly or on WiFi? I haven't noticed any slowdowns on my (rogers) connection, and I'm in the same area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:uwaterloo's servers are pretty slow, I usually max out around there if I try to pull anything from them. What's your setup like when downloading? Are you wired in directly or on WiFi? I haven't noticed any slowdowns on my (rogers) connection, and I'm in the same area. I use wired of course (wired the entire house, got an ethernet jack in every room), and when i download something bigger, I usually use a program that would spawn multiple connections for the same thing (sabnzbd for usenet, my own 2 download managers for simple http/ftp that spawn 20-30 connections each, and i have other usenet clients that i wrote myself). I use supernews for my usenet needs, and I dont break 2MB/s. And even now im trying to watch the redbull SC2 event on twitch.tv and I cannot watch it at 720p+ . And nobody is downloading anything in my house at the moment. I probably should just call start.ca
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
rhag posted:I use wired of course (wired the entire house, got an ethernet jack in every room), and when i download something bigger, I usually use a program that would spawn multiple connections for the same thing (sabnzbd for usenet, my own 2 download managers for simple http/ftp that spawn 20-30 connections each, and i have other usenet clients that i wrote myself). I use supernews for my usenet needs, and I dont break 2MB/s. And even now im trying to watch the redbull SC2 event on twitch.tv and I cannot watch it at 720p+ . And nobody is downloading anything in my house at the moment. Probably! Make sure you reboot your modem first!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:Probably! Make sure you reboot your modem first! I did that yesterday. No change. Now my upload speed is higher than my dowload: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
rhag posted:I did that yesterday. No change. Now my upload speed is higher than my dowload:  Call start and get them to take a look, they probably won't bite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
WHERE MY HAT IS AT posted:
Did just that, and after a long wait on the phone, a support guy came along and when he saw my IP (135.0.24.xx) all he had to say is  . Apparently my modem has been badly provisioned (and that's why speedtest sees me as belonging to CIK Telecom (who are they?)).After factory reset of the modem, rerun dhclient em0 few times, still getting the same IP, a ticket was created and that will hopefully fix my issue (24-48 hours). Strangely, I was getting the 150Mbps every now and then, that's why i didnt complain. But last week it was quite rare, and yea ... it was very low most of the time. All in all, I hope my issue will get resolved asap and get the speeds im paying for all the time .
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
I was getting 7/9 at some point (paying for 20/10). The way I figured out how to fix it is to hook your modem directly up to your computer before you boot the modem up. It then detected my computer's MAC address and set me back up with 20/10 again. I tried MAC cloning on my router but it somehow still got detected as a router being connected. Also, for some reason, it gave me an IP address from a server in Winnipeg when detecting my router v  v
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Migishu posted:I was getting 7/9 at some point (paying for 20/10). The way I figured out how to fix it is to hook your modem directly up to your computer before you boot the modem up. It then detected my computer's MAC address and set me back up with 20/10 again. My modem is hooked directly to the computer all the time, since I have an OpenBSD Pentium 4 in the basement acting as a gateway (for some reason that is really strange to support guys, do people actually use those best buy routers and put them besides some computer in the house????). I just ssh into it and do anything that I would want. I can set my MAC to anything that I want, but I hardly believe that's remotely advisable (unless you know a safe range). You can get into some weird networks (certainly not the one you're supposed to be into). (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
rhag posted:My modem is hooked directly to the computer all the time, since I have an OpenBSD Pentium 4 in the basement acting as a gateway (for some reason that is really strange to support guys, do people actually use those best buy routers and put them besides some computer in the house????). I just ssh into it and do anything that I would want. Lots of people use those best buy routers? It may surprise you to know not everyone has ethernet drops in every room of the house. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have, but I can't exactly go knocking down walls just to not use WiFi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
rhag posted:... I have an OpenBSD Pentium 4 in the basement acting as a gateway (for some reason that is really strange to support guys, do people actually use those best buy routers and put them besides some computer in the house????). I just ssh into it and do anything that I would want. Three things: 1) If you're going for sperg cred why not just get one of these and save the power draw from the least power efficient CPU on the planet? 2) You do realize that consumer routers have allowed free form MAC spoofing for literally more than a decade right? Hell, you can use any WRT based firmware and get SSH too, again without paying for 200+watt continuous draw just to route packets. 3) Regarding that last one, please, do tell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Three things: I have my P4 because i bought it a decade ago and I just dont wanna throw it away. Why do I have a computer instead of a router? Http , mail, database, various programs that i wrote myself are running on that. I heard some linksys routers can run some heavily modified version of linux, but i never tried them. The flexibility a pc provides is way too tempting. I am writing my own poo poo on my own desktop pc, uploading it to the basement and it just works. What's not to love? Why would I wanna change that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
You might find even a $100 second-hand core2 or newer system will do you better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
Kachunkachunk posted:You might find even a $100 second-hand core2 or newer system will do you better. In what way? Any cpu made in the last 6 years would be faster than an old p4, but ... what would i need it for? To provide routing packets to the 10 ips in the network? The mail, http, etc. traffic that i get is not that demanding any way you slice it. My programs at mostly do some traffic counting and monitoring, nothing too much. Why would I spend 100$ when I can spend 0$? What would a new cpu provide that i dont already have (and I would need)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
rhag posted:I have my P4 because i bought it a decade ago and I just dont wanna throw it away. Why do I have a computer instead of a router? Http , mail, database, various programs that i wrote myself are running on that. I heard some linksys routers can run some heavily modified version of linux, but i never tried them. The flexibility a pc provides is way too tempting. I am writing my own poo poo on my own desktop pc, uploading it to the basement and it just works. What's not to love? Why would I wanna change that? You can cross compile for the ARM/MIPS environments that the Linksys/Buffalo/ASUS routers use and run your own stuff on an embedded device that already runs a Linux kernel with a busybox shell. If you're writing open source with standard libraries there's nothing stopping you unless you need proprietary binary blobs for something. But yes, as long as your time and the electricity you use has no cost, sure, why not. Just as long as you don't marvel about how people actually use those best buy routers and put them besides some computer in the house. rhag posted:In what way? Any cpu made in the last 6 years would be faster than an old p4, but ... what would i need it for? To provide routing packets to the 10 ips in the network? The mail, http, etc. traffic that i get is not that demanding any way you slice it. My programs at mostly do some traffic counting and monitoring, nothing too much. Why would I spend 100$ when I can spend 0$? What would a new cpu provide that i dont already have (and I would need)? So, you don't actually need a P4 either, and the cost savings in power would offset the one time cost of a WRT compatible router in less than a year. I'm still curious about the networks you got into by spoofing your MAC though. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:You can cross compile for the ARM/MIPS environments that the Linksys/Buffalo/ASUS routers use and run your own stuff on an embedded device that already runs a Linux kernel with a busybox shell. If you're writing open source with standard libraries there's nothing stopping you unless you need proprietary binary blobs for something. But yes, as long as your time and the electricity you use has no cost, sure, why not. Just as long as you don't marvel about how people actually use those best buy routers and put them besides some computer in the house. I can cross-compile for sure, I still don't have an answer as for why. For the power consumption, I have an UPS in the basement that reports a grand total of 60W for everything thats in there (a switch, a wireless thingy, a NAS with 2 HDDs, etc. ). My monthly power bill is around 75$ in the summer (with AC and all), why would I spend 30$ on a router that i would have to cross-compile for? To get my money back in a year or so? I have everything that I need with the setup that I have, why would I wanna change? There is no apparent benefit to that, only downsides. The last time i tried a best buy router (a linksys) it choked on 10 or more connections at the same time. Im sure they're better now (it was in 2004), but I honestly see no reason to go to them. OpenBSD gives everything that I need and more. It is a very secure and powerful i386 OS. For now, that's all that I need. About my MAC spoofing..I didnt get anywhere, it was a lovely provisioning by the ISP. Why am I on CIK Telecom? your guess is as good as mine. I cant wait for them to fix it though. Edit: 60KW that's huge, 60W is more in line to what I wanted to say Volguus fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
I thought about taking an old PC and using it as a router once. Twice, maybe. Way back before Red Hat had its IPO. I didn't, because I had better things to do than teach myself a then-terribly documented OS and the vagaries of its networking code, and didn't need a file box or mail server in the basement. I still don't, and at a conservative guess I suspect that 99% of home broadband users don't either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 07:42
|
|
|
rhag posted:...For now, that's all that I need. Fair enough. I was just saying it doesn't make any kind of sense in any scenario other than "because I want to". Regarding the CIK thing, that's probably an upstream issue, your router/PC's MAC isn't likely to make a difference as far as your ISP's DHCP server is concerned unless it's already registered elsewhere (actually, this may have happened, check for packet loss). I had the same kind of performance drop with an unaffected upload on Teksavvy DSL, apparently caused by a faulty fibre interconnect at the Bell node for my neighbourhood. edit: rhag posted:...I have an UPS in the basement that reports a grand total of 60KWh for everything thats in there (a switch, a wireless thingy, a NAS with 2 HDDs, etc.) Holy poo poo. That seems a bit high... infernal machines fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Bieeardo posted:I thought about taking an old PC and using it as a router once. Twice, maybe. Way back before Red Hat had its IPO. I didn't, because I had better things to do than teach myself a then-terribly documented OS and the vagaries of its networking code, and didn't need a file box or mail server in the basement. I still don't, and at a conservative guess I suspect that 99% of home broadband users don't either. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just can't see myself without my tools. They're my eyes on the network. No packet goes through without me knowing about it. Since the linksys experiment for me went sour very fast, I obviously went back to my old p4. I, of course, cannot understand those that don't need/want this kind of control. I see in my neighborhood dozens of wifi networks, secured by bell, dlink or linksys, surely in their default configuration. Why would anyone do this is beyond me, but as you said, maybe some people dont wanna teach themselves a terribly documented OS. To each their own, i suppose. If it works for you, then by all means go ahead. This kind of "judgment" is a bit new to me and scary to be honest as I was not expecting the replies. For me is just common sense (wire everything, put openbsd as the gateway, write some loving tools to monitor poo poo, etc. ) but i guess i was/am in the wrong here. Until I can get a good reason to switch i'll stick to my habits and probably die a very old and lonely man. The neighborhood freak .
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
There are a lot of good, robust, consumer grade solutions that offer monitoring and QOS and filtering without having to reinvent the wheel. If you prefer to roll your own that's cool, but why be smug about it? There are better options these days, you just have to do a bit of research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:There are a lot of good, robust, consumer grade solutions that offer monitoring and QOS and filtering without having to reinvent the wheel. If you prefer to roll your own that's cool, but why be smug about it? There are better options these days, you just have to do a bit of research. And where the gently caress did the "smug" thingy came from? Are there better/already done tools out there? Of course there are. Why is that even news? Do they suit me? Not those that I tried. WTF is with the "smug" business? This conversation is probably better suited for the "Home networking" thread than here. I would have been smug to go there and teach them how setup a home network. But I didnt. For me the consumer grade solutions are insufficient at best, dangerous at worst. But for most they can work just fine. That's why i dont go and post there, everyone is entitled to build their network as they see fit, according to their needs and wants. I setup mine exactly how i wanted to and the only reason you heard about it is because somebody asked me about my non existent wireless solution (a honest and normal question after all). Where's the smug that you keep on talking about? Volguus fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
Smug?rhag posted:(for some reason that is really strange to support guys, do people actually use those best buy routers and put them besides some computer in the house????) rhag posted:I see in my neighborhood dozens of wifi networks, secured by bell, dlink or linksys, surely in their default configuration. Why would anyone do this is beyond me, but as you said, maybe some people dont wanna teach themselves a terribly documented OS. Sorry, I obviously took that too far. I appologize, and I'll drop the point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Smug? For me both those points do not make any sense whatsoever. I do not see anything "smug" about them, just nonsense "consumer grade" networking. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to use that, other than laziness. However, I agree that this went too far, and i apologize as well for my outbursts. The home networking thread is a better place for this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
rhag posted:For me both those points do not make any sense whatsoever. I do not see anything "smug" about them, just nonsense "consumer grade" networking. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to use that, other than laziness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
rhag posted:In what way? Any cpu made in the last 6 years would be faster than an old p4, but ... what would i need it for? To provide routing packets to the 10 ips in the network? The mail, http, etc. traffic that i get is not that demanding any way you slice it. My programs at mostly do some traffic counting and monitoring, nothing too much. Why would I spend 100$ when I can spend 0$? What would a new cpu provide that i dont already have (and I would need)? Something I'm trying to look into is a way to classify traffic coming in from specific applications and processes on any given client system. For instance if Steam now does content system downloads from port 80 which looks like normal HTTP traffic, how can I tag/mark packets for just the Steam downloads without knowing all the content servers' destination IPs? Trying to do some source-based routing or at least prioritization. But I think in the end it'll be easier to just netstat the destination IPs and make some traditional rules. ... I really should get into the home networking thread now too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 18:26
|
|