This constant bickering and name calling is getting us nowhere. The fact of the matter is we have slow internet access and there's nothing direct we can do about it. This problem is compounded by the fact that CIS has not been forthwrite with us. They denied the cap they placed on us untill they realized whatever settings they had used to enforce the cap were wrong, and consequently slowed our connection down past a 2400baud modem. This may or may not have been deliberate. What better way to cut someone’s access that to knock it down to nothing, admit you had the settings wrong, insist a cap is needed still and then raise the access back up a little. That way, people are so glad there access is better; they won’t complain or remember what it was like before any of the caps… If they had set it to where it is now, people left and right would be complaining, but now people are just content with what they had knowing how bad it COULD be.

Simply put calling names and getting pissed of at each other is not going to do it. The helpdesk employee’s are for the most part left out in the dark to matter’s of CIS so they have no right to speak for CIS or assume they know something, because the fact of the matter is they don’t. But no one should bash on the helpdesk people because they do provide a valuable service. Some are better trained than others, but that’s life.

Ryan’s program DOES provide a extremely valuable service. Whether you agree with what kind of files are shared is beside the point, it is after all a free country. Ryan’s program does not hurt bandwidth at all. Right now your computer is tying up more bandwidth that Ryan’s is by just sitting there(IMs, audiogalaxy, netbios,etc). With the way our network is set up sharing files cross-complex or res-greek does hurt our total usable bandwidth, but I’d be willing to bet that for the most part, file sharing stays inside one complex or another. BTW that’s file sharing in general, not file-sharing due to knowledge gained from Ryan’s machine.

Here it is in black in white. Ryan’s program allows users to find programs they would have spent an hour finding the old way. His program makes it quicker to surf the local network. This resulted in a small spike in total used internal bandwidth. CIS got pissed because they don’t want servers of any kind running. So, instead of responding to this change by reorganizing the network to allow for no interruptions, they exaggerated the problem and solved it using the simplest method, a cap. In the process they made Ryan their poster-child of problem users, more or less insinuating that he is root of the problem.

If we want to see things change there is only one way to do it. Campus will NOT listen to a bunch of four-year-olds calling each other names. Our demand has to be simple and straightforward. What we want is a simple networking restructure and upgrade to allow for faster “in-house” transfer’s for students personal computer, and to have our internet cap raised or removed. The premise for raising or removing the cap comes from the fact that at home I pay $40 a month from a easily obtainable public internet company to get on average 300kb downstream and 150kb upstream. Campus, in all it’s greatness and technical savvy, should be able to at LEAST provide us with service comparable to what you could buy from Fidelity cable. Afterall we are supposed to be one of the best engineering and science schools around (that would imply high-technology).

BTW. We ARE capped. As a group, res-greek life, no individuals have been capped. If you don’t believe me I’ll forward you the email you missed from Meg Brady about it.

Scott, I'd say you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

and given that, what was the point of your post?

ok....For one I have pretty much dropped the issue so it isn't appreciated by me that you would keep draggin it on .... I do realize it does help outgoing and incoming bandwidth and I realize that its impact on MOST switched networks on campus is somewhat non-existant. I had a bitter taste in my mouth since I had countless people coming to just me asking why the hell it was so slow here at the house and upon investigation I found that I could un-plug the 10 guys who were using seek42 to find movies the speed for everyone else increased. For one I did find the guy who designed our network about 5 years ago had 2 10 base hubs cascaded then having one go to the switch(I fixed that) I also spread out the remaingin people out on the switch and the 100 base hubs. Truthfully this fixed most of the problem everyone was seeing at the house. <-- Look I admited that hey it wasn't all seek42... But to have people telling me I am full of crap was, I felt, was going to far. I worked for the Civil Engineering Department for 3 years before going to the Helpdesk(April 2001) as a technition for the computers there helped move from an entirely dos environment to NT without the help of CIS. Also helped with the upgrading of the network caused by the new construction. then only being at the helpdesk for a few months I was promoted to work with the desktop support team. I'd say I am not completely full of crap ... Figured I would give you a little background and to say that hey I am chilling out maybe you should heed your own advice and chill out also ..

-Chris

Another thing is I think we should be more focused on the events that has happened today and not this small stuff.

These posts would make a good Seinfeld episode...the show about nothing.

-Snoop

hi

Ouch that hurts.... (notice the sarcasm)

Not everyone working at the helpdesk is a loudmouth moron, although there are many. Also, right was right in the last topic concerning this, there are little to no requirments to work at the HD. We have a couple of people who seem to nothing about computers at all. We do, however, have some smart people who know what they are talking about.

hey alcahuete, how are you?

I believe the last topic was locked for a reason, lets find something else to talk about.

-snoop

FidNet also caps its cable users. Most of the people I know who are connected through them bitch and gripe constantly about having an insanely low bandwidth cap (somewhere around 33Kb/s (256Kbit/s)for two IP's). So, if you're paying 40$ a mo. to Fidelity, you're capped out at 16Kb/s not 300/150.. hey, unless your paying the premium 90$ a mo. for a cap of merely 64Kb/s :P You can find all of this here: <http://services.fidnet.com/cable_access.phtml>. This is assuming that you were talking about Fidelity in your post.. :)

Fidelity is not a great broadband service by any means. They cap their costomers so they can "provide stable and persistent internet connections regardless of network load." Now this is BS, considering that Fidelity has a grand total of 11 nodes to handle their traffic, 6 of which handle the rolla area. Their lease with their parent company calls for them only paying for the bandwidth that their costomers use, and by putting ludicrously small caps on their customers, they can cut their overhead and reap local profits. This is taking into consideration that they have not reached even 20% of their capacity. And they dont forsee filling their capacity within the next 4 years (including planned upgrades to accomadate expanding customer base) before sprint moves in with better/cheaper DSL services.

FidNet has no need to put caps on their users' bandwidth. They will never have problems with network load. It's just price gouging untill the competition moves in.

PB
Ex. Fidelity Employee