Re: Answer to 'no connection' problems....& Re: CUSEEME in Europe

Ko s (
Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:59:43 +0200

>Thanks for all the replies I received om my question about not getting
>Most of you got me thinking about my provider, so I posted the question on
>their newsgroup and
>found the following answer, it's in Dutch so I'll translate it:
>>CUseeme is afgesloten op xxxxxx, omdat het veel te veel bandbreedte
>>kost die bovendien vrijwel allemaal in ons netwerk verloren gaat.
>>Als jij namelijk een CUseeme verbinding opstart, wordt er 64kb/s gestuurd
>>door de andere kant, ongeacht hoeveel je 28k8 modem verbindinkje aankan.
>>Als je 5 CUseeme verbindingen opstart, wordt er totaal 320kb/s verstuurd,
>>daarvan gaat dan vrijwel alles verloren op ons netwerk, en een klein
>>gedeelte komt nog bij jou aan. Dit is voor ons het grootste probleem.
>>Als er een video applicatie is die niet verschrikkelijk zuigt en iets
>>begrepen heeft van flow control op het internet, moet je die gaan
>>CUSEEME is cut off from the providor, because it costed to much bandwith
>which above
>>all is for the greatest part unused. When a cuseeme connection is started,
>the other side sends a 64 kb/s
>>package, regardless of howmuch your modem can handle.
>>So, if you start 5 connections, a total of 320 kb/s will be sent, almost
>everything of this gets lost in the
>>network, and a small part of it gets to you. This is our biggest problem.
>>If there is a video application that does not suck terribly and has
>understood anything of flow control, you should
>>use that one.

A year ago CU-SeeMe Reflectors had a habbit of sometimes glogging up
network traffic; the reflectors estimated the average they could send out,
so low-bw users were flooded with UDP packets which have the habbit of not
backing-off as TCP packets do; some routers had overloaded buffers some of
them even crashed.

As it stands now ; the Reflectors and CU-SeeMe front-ends should be better
aware of bandwidth usage. And it wil take some time before CU-SeeMe gets
rid of its bad name.

But dear providers! now I am still using 28k8 to/from your bottleneck to
the backbone with UDP this is something else as TCP ftp-transfer. And the
trick of offering a so-called "28k8 internet connection" is somewhat to be
regarded with suspicion.

I my country it has happened that one backbone *.nl couldn't transmit
outside Europe , probably it happened as described above. It only lasted
for a few dayes.

Probably that those new high-bw services will make us more aware of the
quality of providers; eventualy the technique they use will grade them and
prices will be accordingly ranging from telnet to multi-line bonded ISDN

Yuk! folks I thought I finally could use QuickCam audio on my (audio-in
lacking) Mac fx, alas only garbled stuttering sounds, as a step beyond
muteness with this new version?