cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SUP a way of saving money?

JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

The usenet servers that we do provide are never going to be as good as those that are commercially available. Though they are currently handling as much data as they can in order to keep retention as high as possible. But an average of three days is fairly common for ISP provided usenet servers. For example, Blueyonder have a similar retention on their servers.

As for post completion, this can be affected by several things, as its possible that not all parts of a post make it to a particular server, depending on where abouts in the world the post originates from. I've personally had that happen both on our servers and on Easynews. Though generally, it is possible to repair the download using par files.

We can look at improving the server, however nothing is likely to happen in the short term due to the resources that would have to be expended on a service that only a small number of people use.
N/A

SUP a way of saving money?

I gave up attempting to use f9 usenet servers for binaries because of completeness issues a few months after I joined (a long time ago). At the time, I believe the strapline was something like "access to all newsgroups" and yes, you could access most groups, but it wasn't worth trying to download anything from them.
Perhaps there may be some connection with the increased usage of p2p software, as downloading binaries fron f9 seems to be a waste of (limited) bandwidth.
I'd kind of hoped that once I reconciled myself to the fact that the binary news-servers were useless, it would be okay. Then "unlimited downloads" became ... err..kind of limited... and then....whirly roundabouts...dizzy...SUP..never ending 1%... whoops... slipping off the edge...

We don't seem to have an emoticon for "going green round the edges" Sad
Marteknet
Grafter
Posts: 577
Registered: 13-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

Quote

We can look at improving the server, however nothing is likely to happen in the short term due to the resources that would have to be expended on a service that only a small number of people use.


You seem to have missed the point here. Force9 have Usenet listed as a service (not a free add on) in their package features listing in their advertising, what's more I do believe it's listed for all account types. Surely it should work reliably no matter how many people use it.
JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

For the most part it does work reliably. Myself I've had very few problems with it, other than when there has been a major issue with the server itself. The problem comes when people expect it to be as good as the commercial servers that are dedicated to providing news access.

For text only groups, the text server is fast and reliable. Where as for binaries, the server is generally reliable, though you will occasionally have to make use of par files.

I'm not saying its the best server in the world, but it isn't something that we directly charge you for. As even people on the free dialup account can use the usenet server, provided they are connected to us at the time.
Marteknet
Grafter
Posts: 577
Registered: 13-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

Quote
I'm not saying its the best server in the world, but it isn't something that we directly charge you for. As even people on the free dialup account can use the usenet server, provided they are connected to us at the time.


Thanks for the info that we are not charged for the Usenet service. But this leads me on to a new question. Why does it appear in the advertising that this is part of the package. I do believe this is rather misleading to customers, the way package features are listed on the Force9 adverting page would make anyone think that it's one of the services they are paying for, what's more the fact that it's an add-on without clearly being labelled as such is rather worrying. I expect add-on's can be withdrawn at any time should Force9 decide that they are not financially viable. I wonder just how many other features listed in the advertising are in fact free add-on's.
N/A

SUP a way of saving money?

Martek, I take it that you wrote this with your tongue firmly in cheek!

Everything that F9 provide, from the basic internet connection, web and cgi space, servers, customer service staff etc. - the LOT - comes out of our subscriptions. They have no other income. To say that it is 'not directly charged for' is pure New Labour spin. It is indeed charged for. It is provided as a sort of differentiator to other ISPs in the hope that it will attract a few more customers who then will not use it. In fact it is just as directly charged for as say Premier data transfer where there is no direct per-gigabyte fee.

With absolutely no malice intended, the more I read postings such as jwhiting's above, the more I am sure that F9 is a training school for budding spin doctors.
JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

That's the point. You're not directly charged for access to the usenet servers, as its something that is available on all of our accounts. Though it is true that part of your monthly subscription cost goes towards maintaining and improving the network, this isn't the same as paying a set fee in order to access our usenet server.

There are quite a few ISPs that do something similar, they include access to a usenet server as part of the package, or partner up with one of the commercial services in order to try and offer the service. But ISP run usenet servers, due to their very nature, tend not to be as good as the commerically run servers.
Marteknet
Grafter
Posts: 577
Registered: 13-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

Quote
That's the point. You're not directly charged for access to the usenet servers, as its something that is available on all of our accounts. Though it is true that part of your monthly subscription cost goes towards maintaining and improving the network, this isn't the same as paying a set fee in order to access our usenet server.


That's a very interesting point. So everyone is paying for all the services. Please tell me why the Usenet gets less support then say the games server, surely if everyone is paying for them then they should all be given the same importance and the same level of reliability, otherwise you are robbing from some of the features that some people use to give a better service on other features. For instance I never use the games severs and have no plans to use the new plus-talk so in a way I am subsidising others who use more services than I myself do, only to find that the service I use (Usenet) has been capped.

This can't be right. Are there any plans to monitor bandwidth on game servers, plus-talk usage and the other services. If not then it's really unfair to single out people who mainly use just Usenet.
JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

With regards to the games servers, they come out of the network budget in the same way that everything else does. However, these are considerably less expensive that the usenet platform, due to their nature. As they don't need to handle terrabytes of data.

As for PlusTalk, this is a subscription service, where people are paying towards it, so budget for the specialised equipment is provided that way. Though most of it is standard servers on the backend that deal with other things as well.

But this isn't a case of usenet getting less support. If usenet were getting less support Networks would have most likely turned the service off all together some time ago. Additionally, your usenet usage hasn't been capped in any way. The vision is about giving you the chance to use a certain ammount of usenet at a high speed no matter what time of day it is. Where as previously this would have been slowed down due to other things on the network, such as p2p, squeezeing the traffic.

There's no need to introduce bandwidth monitoring on the games servers or plustalk, as these fall under the usage on people's accounts. Its only been done for usenet in order to provide it at higher speeds.
N/A

SUP a way of saving money?

Quote

This can't be right. Are there any plans to monitor bandwidth on game servers, plus-talk usage and the other services. If not then it's really unfair to single out people who mainly use just Usenet.


Wink I've got to assume that this is mainly "Michael extraction", but that good old "protecting the network (for the greater benefit of mankind) " catch22 bit allows f9 to do more less anything they wish, whilst not bothering to inform us about it. Usenet is also a good target because, wow, there's some porn and illegal sofware on it.
Perhaps www should be capped heavily because of porn sites, peado grooming chat rooms, warez sitez, and annoying terms and conditions pages :lol:
Marteknet
Grafter
Posts: 577
Registered: 13-10-2007

SUP a way of saving money?

Quote
Quote

This can't be right. Are there any plans to monitor bandwidth on game servers, plus-talk usage and the other services. If not then it's really unfair to single out people who mainly use just Usenet.


Wink I've got to assume that this is mainly "Michael extraction", but that good old "protecting the network (for the greater benefit of mankind) " catch22 bit allows f9 to do more less anything they wish, whilst not bothering to inform us about it. Usenet is also a good target because, wow, there's some porn and illegal sofware on it.
Perhaps www should be capped heavily because of porn sites, peado grooming chat rooms, warez sitez, and annoying terms and conditions pages :lol:


Don't forget email its 98% spam anyway Cheesy