A letter from VN (reposted from vn.support)
Robert J Fischer
What a load of hog wash from VN.
Using their usage URL, I found I used their system
63 hours during the past 30 day with my longest
logon being 5.5 hours. Yet I got their letter...
Fong
Greetings, phl.internet people!
I'm sure you'll have fun with this!!!
Everything under the dotted line is copied *exactly*
from an article on the vn support group.
Oh, the name at the top of *their* message does not
match the name at the bottom!?!
Bye, A.F. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
____________________________________________________
....................................................
From tec...@voicenet.com Sat Oct 11 00:41:51 1997
Path: news3.voicenet.com!news.voicenet.com!not-for-mail
From: tec...@voicenet.com (Jack Willis)
Newsgroups: voicenet.support,voicenet.support.mac
Subject: An Open Letter To Our Customers
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:41:51 GMT
Organization: VoiceNet Customer Service
Lines: 297
Message-ID: <61n1ba$9qq$1...@news3.voicenet.com>
Reply-To: sys...@voicenet.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivyland147.voicenet.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: news3.voicenet.com voicenet.support:22815
voicenet.support.mac:1678
In the Internet Service Provider industry, the average fee for
a dedicated dial-up line is $150 to $200 per month. This service is
intended for those individuals who need to log onto the Internet and
maintain a connection on a "non-interactive" basis. In order to
provide that type of connectivity, the Internet Service Provider must
dedicate hardware to that connection, costing several thousands of
dollars. Thus, even at those fee levels, the cost for the equipment
and related services is not recouped for a considerable period of
time. When it finally is, there are upgrades to be made and equipment
to be replaced. Obviously, the average user of the Internet cannot
afford such costs and the associated fees. For that reason, the
industry has developed personal and commercial "interactive"
accounts. By requiring all of us to share these resources only during
those periods of times that they are actually being used on an
"interactive" basis, it is possible for the provider to spread the
costs of a single dedicated connection and the related and associated
equipment among several users. Certain providers unfortunately,
spread those resources too thin and this has resulted in much of the
publicity that has taken place with some of the national providers.
At VoiceNet, we keep that ratio at one of the lowest, if not the
lowest, in the industry, thereby all but eliminating busy signals.
The only time that busy signals are encountered is when usage
increases rapidly and Bell Atlantic or the carrier involved cannot
install lines quick enough for us and our customers.
What throws this equation and any other usage model out the
window is the logging in on these "interactive" accounts for extended
periods of time on a "non-interactive" basis. It is understandable
that on certain occasions, long files will have to be downloaded
requiring a session longer than normal. That neither presents a
problem to VoiceNet nor is it directly opposed to our policies. If
however, these sessions are repetitive in nature such that when the
logs are viewed for a customer, it becomes obvious that they are using
a dial-up "interactive" service for dedicated connectivity, then in
that instance the remaining users are subsidizing that person's
account. If this were continue with us or any other service
provider, it goes without saying that prices would have to increase.
Simply put, no provider can sell a product for $19.95 a month which
costs close to $150.00 per month to deliver. If these low cost
accounts are to continue in our industry, we must all share and use
the Internet fairly and equitably.
Experts who have analyzed the ISP industry have stated that
they believe that the "interactive" $19.95 account will not continue
to exist. They, like us, have monitored increase in usage of the
Internet and predict a model in the future which will be less
desirable to all. That model will either involve greatly increased
monthly account charges of perhaps two or three times their present
level or even a usage basis whereby accounts are charged per minute of
use. By so doing, the person using the account more, pays more for
that account. We at VoiceNet would like to avoid these models and
believe that if the Internet is used reasonably the $19.95 model can
be maintained. We hope that the experts are wrong and that we are
correct. If they are not wrong, the average cost to the individual
that received the recent email would be in excess of $100.00 for the
usage on that account for the month of September.
This leads us to exactly what notices went out and to whom
they were sent. To start with, all service providers maintain usage
logs. This is required in order to detect problematic hardware and
also to predict equipment needs in the future. This account
information is now also available to our non-ISDN dial-up customers on
an account password protected basis
at: "http://www.voicenet.com/usecheck.html".
The "non-interactive" notices which were recently sent out, were sent
out to less than 1% of our user base. The remaining 99% of our users
are utilizing the resources on an "interactive" basis thereby sharing
resources and making low cost accounts possible. Some of those users
who did not receive notices have monthly usages well in excess of
those who received notices. It must therefore be emphasized that the
basis of the notices was not the usage per month. It was instead,
high session time on a repetitive basis indicating "non- interactive"
use. For example, one of the most vocal customers in the VoiceNet
support group had usage sessions as long as thirteen (13) consecutive
days without a logout. Although that person may be extremely vocal,
it is hard to believe that a person can be in front of their computer
actively using it for thirteen (13) consecutive days without sleeping
or eating. Another person who is also extremely verbose in the
newsgroup, had average usage for the entire month of September of 23.7
hours per day. Thus, for all intent and purposes, during the entire
month of September they were never logged off. Was that use
"interactive"? We think not. A third account had log-in periods of
34 hours, 54 hours and 63 hours each separated by less than 3 hours.
Thus that person was on the Internet for almost six (6) consecutive
days on a "interactive" basis. We think not. It is this type of
usage that will prove the industry analysts to be correct and result
in all of us having to pay more for the Internet. That is, the
customers will have to pay for accounts in the range of $100.00 per
month and the Internet Service Provider will have to add additional
equipment and lines to service those accounts. The economic model
does not change for the provider. He collects more money, but his
costs likewise increase. In the end, the persons that are really
harmed are the 99% of our customer base and presumably the 99% of any
Internet service provider's customer base that is using these
resources fairly and on an "interactive" basis.
Undoubtedly, not all of the people who received emails were
using the system in the manner outlined above as exhibited by those
that are most vocal in the support group. Everyone, however, that
received a notice had at least several sessions that appear not to be
"interactive". These sessions were well in excess of ten (10) hours
each. By far the majority had sessions in the neighborhood of 18-20
hours on a repetitive basis. One solution to this problem, besides
increasing costs, is to do what many other service providers have
done. If the terms and conditions or on-line policies of other
providers are examined, it would be eye-opening to many of our
customers. For the most part, all have provisions in their terms
and conditions addressing "interactive" use. It may be called another
name, but the effect is always the same. Many providers limit
sessions to 3 or 4 hours. When that time is reached, they
automatically disconnect and disallow that person to reconnect for a
period of 3 hours. We at VoiceNet, would rather not do that. Another
group of providers monitor session time and once individual session
time increases beyond the 3 hours, they begin to charge on an hourly
basis. If we did that, many of the people who received notices, would
have received bills accompanying those notices with surcharges of
$50.00 or more. We at VoiceNet, would rather not do that.
Still other providers call an account unlimited, but dictate that
usage in excess of a certain number of hours per month be charged
thereby converting the account to a usage basis account. Had we
employed this model, likewise invoices would have been generated with
these emails. We at VoiceNet would rather not do that.
Yes, there are other providers that each and every one of our
customers can go to. We don't want that to happen. We believe that
we are the best regional provider with the strongest national backbone
bar-none. As everyone knows, we are also one of the few Internet
peers in the country. Most other Internet Service Providers are merely
resellers of connectivity. That means that our services, our
bandwidth and our connections to the Internet surpass all other
regional providers. We peer at multiple NAP's and will soon be
peering at all five NAP's in the country. Such peering and the
network required to do it is expensive. We at VoiceNet have decided
to bear those expenses for we do want to be the best service provider
in the nation. It goes without question that our backbone is exactly
that. We are and have been in the process of updating our news and
our mail systems. Performance is improving and will continue to do
so. If however, we are also to subsidize dedicated connections that
pay merely$19.95 a month, then resources will have to be reallocated
to those accounts instead of improvements in network and hardware.
That is unfair not only VoiceNet, but to the 99% of our customer base
and therefore we don't want to do that either.
It is for the above reasons that we were compelled to begin to
examine our accounts on an individual basis and decide which accounts
have extended usage periods on a repetitive basis, thereby indicating
"non-interactive" use. In essence, we examined which accounts due to
their "non-interactive" usage are being subsidized by remaining 99% of
our customer base. Those accounts received notices of these usage
patterns, not notices of cancellation. All the notice was meant to
do, was to ask that each examine the usage habits and review our
On-Line Policies in order to determine whether or not they were fairly
using these resources. If each of us took an honest look at these
accounts, we would have to agree that the majority of customers who
received notices had several sessions where, for whatever reason,
their activity was "non-interactive".
Although there are many imaginative and innovative resources
now available on the Internet, such as Real Audio, the Internet and
the $19.95 account was never meant to be a radio, which could be left
on 24 hours a day/30 days a month. If that is what one wants to do,
then one must obtain a dedicated dial-up connection, so that the
resources of a port and the equipment supporting that port can be
dedicated to that one user. In fairness to all others, however, that
person should also bear the costs of that port. Perhaps some of the
difficulty is in a lack of understanding of how connections are made.
In speaking with many of our customers over the last week, it became
obvious that there is a lack of knowledge that when you dial-in to
VoiceNet, a modem, port, and related equipment is being dedicated to
that connection. This is true even while one is merely reading a web
page already downloaded. Therefore, even inactivity utilizes
resources. As an example, one customer explained during a recent
conversation, that he was not abusing the system and was offended by
the notice for all he was doing was dialing up in the morning and
retrieving email once or twice an hour. This person went on to
explain that the downloads of email took less than 15 seconds each
time and therefore he stated that he doubted that his entire usage
over the weekend was more than an hour or two. In reality, however,
he was connected for the entire 48 hours each and every weekend. For
once the connection is made, it is held, not only during data
transfers, but until such time as there is an actual hang-up. Now
that this person understands this principle he will achieve the same
mail and the same data transfer, merely by clicking and creating a
connection for a few seconds or a few minutes for that matter, every
hour. The information he obtains will be identical, but instead of a
48 hour connection time, his usage to do the same over the weekend
will probably amount to under an hour. Similarly, people who use
Point Cast Network must also understand that the same principles
apply. Although the news may be updated only on an hourly basis,
which updates perhaps takes five or ten minutes, by leaving their
computer logged onto Point Cast, the connection at VoiceNet is made on
a continuous basis thereby resulting in equipment usage for the entire
period of time.
These principles are not new. From day one there has always
been an "interactive" requirement for our non-dedicated dial-up
accounts. For that matter, the same is true for practically all
Internet Service Providers in the country. Those that did not have
interactive basis have implemented them. Those that do not have them
now, will certainly have them in the near future or, quite frankly,
they will go out of business. It does not take an economic professor
to understand that a service costing in excess of $100.00 per month
cannot be delivered to a customer for $19.00 a month. Even a larger
customer base does not help this economic picture. All it does is
increase losses. Let's keep the $19.95 account in place. In fact,
at VoiceNet we would like to even reduce that and believe that
reductions are possible if resources would be shared equitably.
Regardless, as set forth above, we do not want to go to a usage base
model as many other providers are doing.
It is our intent to review usage once again in approximately a
week. Hopefully, some of our customers will have taken the email
message in the manner it was meant to be taken. That is not as a
threat, but merely as our request for everyone to review their usage
habits to see whether or not he or she can better conserve the
resource. For those who continue to use the resource 23.7 hours per
day, every single day of the month, undoubtedly a notice of
cancellation is inevitable. The only other alternative would be to
pass a hat around to other customers and ask them each to pay more in
order to subsidize these accounts. Those who appear to be using it on
an "interactive" basis with occasional extended sessions for large
downloads, etc., will continue to be our valued customers.
We at VoiceNet are hopeful that when we examine these records
within the next week, the majority of accounts who received emails
will have reexamined their use and that only a few messages need be
sent. Those that receive this second notice will be advised,
unfortunately, that it will be their last notice and that within the
week thereafter, we will examine their usage once again. If
individual sessions on a repetitive basis continue to exceed those
levels indicating "interactive" use, we will have no alternative but
to terminate those accounts. By this time, they will have received
three notices and three opportunities to examine their usage habits
and bring them into conformity with industry standards. Their failure
to do so leaves us no alternative. Let me make it clear that at
VoiceNet, we do not want to lose a single customer. We do, however,
want to provide a level of service second to none. It is for that
reason, that we have made great expenditures on our backbone. We know
of no other provider that has extended it's backbone across the
country and yet has not solicited a single account on the opposite
coast. We have done this for our purpose in extending our backbone was
not to bring in more business from California, but merely to provide
better service to our customers here in our region.
Undoubtedly, even this posting will generate spam. At
VoiceNet we don't mind corrective criticism. We also do not mind
suggestions that can help us all reap the benefits that the Internet
is capable of providing. To merely post and or criticize for the sake
of criticism alone, however, accomplishes nothing. Perhaps if we
really wanted to show the abuses, we would publically post the names
and actual usage for many of the abusers. But likewise, we believe
that this also would serve no purpose. Suffice it to say, no seller
of goods or provider of services can meet the needs of everyone. We
would like to believe that we can, but that will never be the case.
Those who use the services for extended periods of time should
seriously consider a dedicated connection. For by doing so, they then
will be carrying their own weight, just like the vast majority of
customers are doing. If they cannot afford to do so and still would
like to use the services for extended periods of time, then that very,
very small group of Internet users, will have to go from provider to
provider, for undoubtedly it is only a matter of time until they are
also asked to leave another provider for the same reasons that
dictated our original email.
In sum, we thank the 99% of our customer base who are using
the resources of the Internet on a fair basis. We also apologize to
that small number of customers who received our email notice who are
using our services in conformity with our policies. Undoubtedly, what
we cannot do, however, is to continue to provide services to the group
of individuals that are truly abusing our On- Line Policies to the
detriment of all. To those people, we ask once again that they
reexamine their usage. If in fact, their usage must continue as it
is, then we think it is best for all if in fact they seek another
provider. As much as it hurts to say so, it is the only alternative.
Nothing would excite us more at VoiceNet than to not have to send out
any additional notices. Unfortunately, that in all likelihood, will
not be the case.
We thank you for allowing us to explain our position and the
trends in the industry that are somewhat disturbing. Those of you who
understand and appreciate these concerns will undoubtedly not receive
a second email from us. Those who cannot or will not change their
usage habits, unfortunately will. This message will generate spam and
email which unfortunately also taxes the resources. That however,
cannot be prevented. We do look forward to constructive thoughts and
will review all emails sent to that end. For that purpose, we have
established an email account specifically for system monitoring. The
address is "sys...@voicenet.com"
Ken Giannantonio
Chief Operating Officer
VoiceNet.
Pete Ruckelshaus
If they're so concerned about extended logins, why don't they just
reboot their machines once a day?? Not a surefire solution, but it
can't hurt. What's more, apparently rebooting servers on a regular
basis can have benefits, something I would think Voicenet would welcome.
But wow, that guy who posted was a windy bastard, wasn't he??
Pete
Barry Kutner
When I was with Voicenet, I used to dial in when got home from work,
and not disconnect until I turned computer off for the night. Not
ideal, but necessary because of constant busy signals after
dinner-time.
Just think how much online time VN will generate when their
subscribers read through that msg :.)
--
Note - Remove the X from my e-mail address for direct replies
Michael Flinn
Barry Kutner wrote:
>
> When I was with Voicenet, I used to dial in when got home from work,
> and not disconnect until I turned computer off for the night. Not
> ideal, but necessary because of constant busy signals after
> dinner-time.
>
> Just think how much online time VN will generate when their
> subscribers read through that msg :.)
>
Yup. I can get on pretty consistently before 7:30 or 7:00PM but after
that, you've paid your money and you takes your chances.
Mike
Pete Ruckelshaus
John Melair wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:42:35 -0500, Pete Ruckelshaus
> <mud...@bikindex.com> wrote:
>
> >If they're so concerned about extended logins, why don't they just
> >reboot their machines once a day??
> downloading a large file (like MSIE 4.0)? I personally work
> (somewhat) bizarre hours, and it wouldn't be abnormal for me to be
> online from 3am-5am...
>
Fishnet reboots at 4AM or so (correct me if I'm wrong, Tony) and I have
yet to hear of any serious problems this causes from fellow
fishnetters. As an aside, if the file transfer is interrupted while
d/l'ing IE4, just reconnect and the file transfer should restart with
the last partial file it sent (don't know how they do it, but it's
cool).
Pete
William Oswald
>If they're so concerned about extended logins, why don't they just
>reboot their machines once a day?? Not a surefire solution, but it
>can't hurt.
Couldn't hurt?! Violent termination of active processes, causing
probable data loss? What a fine idea!
William Oswald
In response to your open letter:
I probably should have logged off to read this! Phew!
I have some questions about this policy and some problems with its
implementation.
>The "non-interactive" notices which were recently sent out, were sent out
>to less than 1% of our user base.
I'm confused as to how less than 1% of your user base can be causing
that much of a problem, especially if they're inactive. Lately you
seem to have licked most of the dial-in problems, as contrasted to,
say, a year or so ago, when we would frequently sit at the computer,
redialing through 45 minutes of busy signals to get in (talk about
interactive!). I'm sure some people were maintaining inactive
connections then in self-defense just so they could get their email in
a timely fashion, and thereby exacerbating the problem. But busies are
extremely rare now. Instead, we have recently seen sluggish Web
traffic, slow shell response, and email timeouts, while news server
response has improved significantly. These things would seem to
indicate particular overstressed server or bandwidth resources.
Would you share with us information on which parts of Voicenet are
overstressed and which are not? And would you explain how inactive
connections contribute to the problem when there seem to be sufficient
dial-in ports?
> It must therefore be emphasized that the basis of the
>notices was not the usage per month. It was instead, high session time on
>a repetitive basis indicating "non- interactive" use.
It is not necessarily a valid assumption that high session time means
non-interactive use. And "non-interactive use" as you have defined it
is not necessarily abusive. Computers are smarter now. Should we take
advantage of that, or should we keep doing things manually?
What is your reaction to the following hypothetical scenario?
A retiree derives much of his income from day-trading on the stock
market. He tracks one or two dozen securities by retrieving quotes on
the Internet every five or ten minutes throughout the trading day and
watching the intraday movements. The trading day, for Internet quote
purposes, lasts from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm, so he needs to be online for
a minimum of seven hours, five days a week, not including any personal
activity outside these times.
He could sit and retrieve quotes constantly, one by one, through his
Web browser, interactively, but instead he uses a software package
which keeps his list of securities, automatically updates the quotes
for these securities every five minutes, and even graphs the intraday
movements. While this is going on, he can also periodically make
trades through his online discount broker, receive trade confirmations
by email, look up financial news and company information on the Web,
listen to realtime market analysis every thirty minutes through
RealAudio, and even take a break to fix himself lunch while the data
continue to be collected automatically.
This would appear to be "high session time on a repetitive basis," but
this is an "unlimited access time" account. The account is actively in
use most of the time it's connected, and most of the usage is on
weekday daytimes, rather than the more congested evening times. While
the user is sensitive to his civic responsibility not to hog scarce
resources, it seems that connections are not so scarce any more.
Whether the quote retrieval, which is the central activity of the
session, is "interactive" or automated, the results are essentially
the same, the intent is the same, and the connect time is the same.
Which is abusive?
> All the notice was meant to do, was to ask
>that each examine the usage habits and review our On-Line Policies in order
>to determine whether or not they were fairly using these resources.
As you can imagine from the response, it would have made an enormous
difference if the notice had said exactly that. Instead it was
threatening and disrespectful.
> For those who continue to use the resource 23.7 hours per day,
>every single day of the month, undoubtedly a notice of cancellation is
>inevitable.
Is this the published criterion then? If not, would you please be as
specific as you can as to what connect-time patterns will put a
customer's account in jeopardy?
> We at VoiceNet are hopeful that when we examine these records
>within the next week, the majority of accounts who received emails will
>have reexamined their use and that only a few messages need be sent. Those
>that receive this second notice will be advised, unfortunately, that it
>will be their last notice and that within the week thereafter, we will
>examine their usage once again. If individual sessions on a repetitive
>basis continue to exceed those levels indicating "interactive" use, we will
>have no alternative but to terminate those accounts. By this time, they
>will have received three notices and three opportunities to examine their
>usage habits and bring them into conformity with industry standards.
That would be two opportunities then, not three? The third time would
be cancellation.
I need clarification, because I don't see my usage requirements
changing much and, having received one notice, must assume my account
status is precarious. I think it's sad that, after several years of my
sticking with Voicenet, including through some of your worst growing
pains, it now seems that you consider my patronage undesirable.
Ain't it a shame when customer and provider have to treat each other
as enemies?
Pete Ruckelshaus
Let me rephrase that...couldn't hurt anymore then their current style of
sysadmin does.
Barry Kutner
osw...@voicenet.com (William Oswald) wrote:
>That would be two opportunities then, not three? The third time would
>be cancellation.
>I need clarification, because I don't see my usage requirements
>changing much and, having received one notice, must assume my account
>status is precarious. I think it's sad that, after several years of my
>sticking with Voicenet, including through some of your worst growing
>pains, it now seems that you consider my patronage undesirable.
>Ain't it a shame when customer and provider have to treat each other
>as enemies?
Their ideal customer is one who pays for monthly service but never
uses it.
Sounds like the casinos throwing our card counters, or capitated HMO
patients asked to find another doctor or insurance company when they
get sick.
Avi Freedman
William Oswald (osw...@voicenet.com) wrote:
: I'm confused as to how less than 1% of your user base can be causing
: that much of a problem, especially if they're inactive. Lately you
Believe it; it's true. 1% of our user base uses 40% of our dialup
resources. 5% of our user base uses 80% of our dialup resources.
: seem to have licked most of the dial-in problems, as contrasted to,
: say, a year or so ago, when we would frequently sit at the computer,
: redialing through 45 minutes of busy signals to get in (talk about
: interactive!). I'm sure some people were maintaining inactive
: connections then in self-defense just so they could get their email in
: a timely fashion, and thereby exacerbating the problem. But busies are
: extremely rare now. Instead, we have recently seen sluggish Web
: traffic, slow shell response, and email timeouts, while news server
: response has improved significantly. These things would seem to
: indicate particular overstressed server or bandwidth resources.
:
: Would you share with us information on which parts of Voicenet are
: overstressed and which are not? And would you explain how inactive
: connections contribute to the problem when there seem to be sufficient
: dial-in ports?
Any time an ISP comes up against needing to order new incoming lines
to deal with growth, paying more money when there are people abusing
the existing resources is distasteful. Perhaps that's what Voicenet
is experiencing.
: A retiree derives much of his income from day-trading on the stock
: market. He tracks one or two dozen securities by retrieving quotes on
: the Internet every five or ten minutes throughout the trading day and
: watching the intraday movements. The trading day, for Internet quote
: purposes, lasts from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm, so he needs to be online for
: a minimum of seven hours, five days a week, not including any personal
: activity outside these times.
That's fine, but he can also log in and out each time. In fact, ISDN
is ideal for that.
: This would appear to be "high session time on a repetitive basis," but
: this is an "unlimited access time" account. The account is actively in
: use most of the time it's connected, and most of the usage is on
: weekday daytimes, rather than the more congested evening times. While
: the user is sensitive to his civic responsibility not to hog scarce
: resources, it seems that connections are not so scarce any more.
:
: Whether the quote retrieval, which is the central activity of the
: session, is "interactive" or automated, the results are essentially
: the same, the intent is the same, and the connect time is the same.
: Which is abusive?
In any case, as long as he/she is sitting there monitoring the stock
market in real-time, no ISP with an unlimited interactive use policy
would complain.
Plus, daytime use in particular is "cheaper" since nighttime is the peak
use time for ISP modem pools.
FYI,
Avi
Avi Freedman
Barry Kutner (w2...@itw.com) wrote:
: When I was with Voicenet, I used to dial in when got home from work,
: and not disconnect until I turned computer off for the night. Not
: ideal, but necessary because of constant busy signals after
: dinner-time.
Busy signals beget heavier use, it's strange but true. Generally resources
have to increase greatly for people to be comfortable that they don't have
to tie up a line.
On some of the ISP mailing lists there are discussions about detecting
sessions kept alive with pings or eudora checking mail every few minutes...
*That*'s the kind of abuse ISPs hate most.
Avi
Michael Hyman
In article <61r3ip$l...@netaxs.com>, free...@netaxs.com says...
>
>On some of the ISP mailing lists there are discussions about detecting
>sessions kept alive with pings or eudora checking mail every few minutes...
>*That*'s the kind of abuse ISPs hate most.
Here's an interesting Win95/NT app. that keeps you alive in a way that
would be difficult/impossible for an ISP to detect:
******Modem Dialers & Utilities******
http://idirect.tucows.com/dial95.html
StealthPing
Version Number: 1.2
Revision Date: September 8, 1997
File Name: stping12.zip
Byte Size: 23,133
License: Shareware (10 day demo)
HomePage: http://www.ditr.com/software/stealth/
NT Compatible: Yes
Description: Keeps you connected by sending packets
of data at random or fixed intervals to simulate actual
Internet activity. In Stealth Mode TM, the ISP thinks that
the packets they are receiving are Normal Internet
Traffic, so the inactivity timer running on your account
will be reset every 15 to 100 seconds. Easy To Use
Graphical Interface. Easy to install and uses less than
30K of disk space.
Rated at 4 cows.
I idly wonder if some of the ISP mailing lists have discussions about how
to cure customer support personnel from writing, "I'm sorry, that isn't
happening for me." as the only response to legitimate problems. ;-)
--
Mike
mi...@op.net ENSONIQ Resources on the Internet:
http://www.op.net/~mikeh/ http://www.op.net/~mikeh/ensoniq.html
Avi Freedman
Michael Hyman (mi...@op.net) wrote:
: Here's an interesting Win95/NT app. that keeps you alive in a way that
: would be difficult/impossible for an ISP to detect:
:
: ******Modem Dialers & Utilities******
: http://idirect.tucows.com/dial95.html
Interesting. Maybe we'll grab it and torture it a bit. I strongly suspect
that an intelligent filter would easily detect it. Or maybe not. We have
plenty of modem-bank resources, and will have even more this coming week
when we drop about 400 dialup accounts that haven't taken our you-will-now-
pay-regularly-or-get-turned-off message seriously.
: I idly wonder if some of the ISP mailing lists have discussions about how
: to cure customer support personnel from writing, "I'm sorry, that isn't
: happening for me." as the only response to legitimate problems. ;-)
I idly wonder if some of the users out there have better things to do than
to point out to other users ways of violating ISP policies.
: Mike
Avi, who wants to be present as an octopus {his favorite food} on the wall
when je...@op.net discusses life, the universe, and un-hooked up
Portmonster IIIs with ETC tomorrow...
Avi Freedman
Kevin Wilkinson (farp...@voicenet.com) wrote:
: On 12 Oct 1997 18:04:21 GMT, free...@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) wrote:
:
: >In any case, as long as he/she is sitting there monitoring the stock
: >market in real-time, no ISP with an unlimited interactive use policy
: >would complain.
:
: Tell that to VoiceNet!
:
: Say, do you guys have any plans for ADSL in the near future?
:
: Kevin "... who is starting to regret keeping VN" Wilkinson
Sigh.
We have plans for ISDN, but when out attention turned to it we couldn't
find any beta testers :)
But yes, we are working with ADSL tests in DC to get familiarized with
the technology, but it's not clear what Bell will be doing with CO
collocation or ADSL<->SMDS gatewaying up here.
Avi
William Oswald
On 12 Oct 1997 18:04:21 GMT, free...@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) wrote:
>William Oswald (osw...@voicenet.com) wrote:
>
>: I'm confused as to how less than 1% of your user base can be causing
>: that much of a problem, especially if they're inactive. Lately you
>
>Believe it; it's true. 1% of our user base uses 40% of our dialup
>resources. 5% of our user base uses 80% of our dialup resources.
I don't understand. Please define your terms. What do you mean by
"dialup resources?" Is it time or equipment, or equipment-per-time, or
what?
>: seem to have licked most of the dial-in problems, as contrasted to,
>: say, a year or so ago, when we would frequently sit at the computer,
>: redialing through 45 minutes of busy signals to get in (talk about
>: interactive!). I'm sure some people were maintaining inactive
>: connections then in self-defense just so they could get their email in
>: a timely fashion, and thereby exacerbating the problem. But busies are
>: extremely rare now. Instead, we have recently seen sluggish Web
>: traffic, slow shell response, and email timeouts, while news server
>: response has improved significantly. These things would seem to
>: indicate particular overstressed server or bandwidth resources.
>:
>: Would you share with us information on which parts of Voicenet are
>: overstressed and which are not? And would you explain how inactive
>: connections contribute to the problem when there seem to be sufficient
>: dial-in ports?
>
>Any time an ISP comes up against needing to order new incoming lines
>to deal with growth, paying more money when there are people abusing
>the existing resources is distasteful. Perhaps that's what Voicenet
>is experiencing.
Perhaps not. They heven't enlightened us.
>: A retiree derives much of his income from day-trading on the stock
>: market. He tracks one or two dozen securities by retrieving quotes on
>: the Internet every five or ten minutes throughout the trading day and
>: watching the intraday movements. The trading day, for Internet quote
>: purposes, lasts from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm, so he needs to be online for
>: a minimum of seven hours, five days a week, not including any personal
>: activity outside these times.
>
>That's fine, but he can also log in and out each time.
Sure. And when that stops being entertaining, he could stick a sharp
pencil in his eye just for fun.
> In fact, ISDN
>is ideal for that.
Up till now, "unlimited access" dialup has been ideal for that.
Avi Freedman
William Oswald (osw...@voicenet.com) wrote:
: >Believe it; it's true. 1% of our user base uses 40% of our dialup
: >resources. 5% of our user base uses 80% of our dialup resources.
:
: I don't understand. Please define your terms. What do you mean by
: "dialup resources?" Is it time or equipment, or equipment-per-time, or
: what?
Modem-minutes available to us per day...
: > In fact, ISDN
: >is ideal for that.
:
: Up till now, "unlimited access" dialup has been ideal for that.
But ISDN is even more ideal because it's fast, and because the
(re-)connect time is so fast, users can connect every N minutes
to check mail or stock quotes, and disconnect after 30 seconds
of idle time, and everyone's happy.
Now if only Bell would tariff it better.
Avi
Avi Freedman
Kevin Wilkinson (farp...@voicenet.com) wrote:
: While I got your attention, what's the status of Netaxs dedicated PPP
: accounts? I'm checking out the page even as we speak and they're
: listed as "Temporarily unavailable--check back soon".
:
: Kevin
We have space for a few more in 242- (local to Philadelphia), but aren't
set up to take new dedicated dialup lines that are not local to Philly.
Avi
Avi Freedman
Robin Miller (rob...@bellatlantic.net) wrote:
: free...@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) wrote:
: >Sigh.
: >
: >We have plans for ISDN, but when out attention turned to it we couldn't
: >find any beta testers :)
:
: I'm a Voicenet refugee, still looking for a good ISDN isp.
:
: Does netaxs offer it?
:
: Robin Miller
: rob...@bellatlantic.net
: (temporarily displaced)
Not right now, and when we do, our initial POP will be Philly-local.
Our plans for ISDN are to not charge more than the base $20/mo,
unless people want 2*B, in which case it'd be $35/mo, and to charge
$1/hour overtime for use above 6 hours on a given day.
FYI,
Avi
Robin Miller
Phil Oliver
On 14 Oct 1997 13:37:30 GMT, free...@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman)
announced:
>Not right now, and when we do, our initial POP will be Philly-local.
>Our plans for ISDN are to not charge more than the base $20/mo,
>unless people want 2*B, in which case it'd be $35/mo, and to charge
>$1/hour overtime for use above 6 hours on a given day.
I know nothing about how ISDN works, but would that plan allow users
to connect with a regular old analog modem if they wanted to connect
above 6 hours but not get charged the overtime fee?
-Phil Oliver
-----
Here's what some Usenetters have to say about Phil Oliver:
"But I'm sure you have had people hateing you all your life.
Your used to it. Look man, your probally an intellgent guy,
and I have little time to play flame guy, but I think your
an idiot." Patrick Marton, in <3441BB...@erols.com>
"The 20 year old punk who, with the aid of his idiot pal,
have managed to piss off more people than Boursy/Grubor
combined." Steve Day in <61u1sm$ln5$1...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>
Jeffrey Nonken
...except that Windows '95 refuses to remember my password. But other
than that, everything is hunky-dory.
free...@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman) wrote:
> But ISDN is even more ideal because it's fast, and because the
> (re-)connect time is so fast, users can connect every N minutes
> to check mail or stock quotes, and disconnect after 30 seconds
> of idle time, and everyone's happy.
----
Jeffrey Nonken - http://www.netaxs.com/~blanche/jnork
Any opinions expressed herein are my own.
Unsolicited commercial email will be ignored, tossed, laughed at,
and/or complained about -- and I won't buy anything from you.
Avi Freedman
Phil Oliver (fel...@BEHSPAMBLOCKnastything.com) wrote:
: On 14 Oct 1997 13:37:30 GMT, free...@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman)
: announced:
:
: >Not right now, and when we do, our initial POP will be Philly-local.
: >Our plans for ISDN are to not charge more than the base $20/mo,
: >unless people want 2*B, in which case it'd be $35/mo, and to charge
: >$1/hour overtime for use above 6 hours on a given day.
:
: I know nothing about how ISDN works, but would that plan allow users
: to connect with a regular old analog modem if they wanted to connect
: above 6 hours but not get charged the overtime fee?
:
: -Phil Oliver
Yes, it's only ISDN time that we're talking about limiting to 6 hours/day
free.
Avi