Seriously, $24 million? What fraction of the total scam volume is that? I would bet it is far less than 1%. Actually look at the criminal conduct of Jamie Dimon and his clan and you could probably prevent $24 million dollars an hour in fraud, theft and abuse. Blaming Tor for incompetence is pretty ridiculous.

Too big to jail is guaranteed to fail.

My experience has been that the best direction is the one that serves the panel owner best. While west may make the grid happier, the real question is what actually provides you with the best ROI and that may not be west.

While the Rambo style vigilante response option sounds good on the surface (and don't get me wrong, my natural response would be along these lines if it were not for the legal implications) the problem is that when you do this, you are now violating the same regulations as they are and you are arguably by definition "retaliating" which stacks even more regulatory violations on your illegal response. They have a bus full of overpaid lawyers ready to swoop on you if you "attack" them. For this reason I strongly recommend against this type of response even though the BOFH in me would very much like to employ it.

In the past I have had to deal with L3 on some similar nonsensical "our abusive users are not our problem" crap. As you have already observed, they have a well refined hearing problem. First, decide how much the per call impact is to your business in your opinion. Estimate the number of calls per day and multiply by the per call rate and then by the number of days to come up with a daily and sum "rate of damages". Then have a lawyer letter drafted and sent to their legal department and make sure the letter shows that you also sent a copy of the draft to the FCC Attn: Fraud & Abuse at 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

In about the time it takes you to go to lunch, the problem will subside. At L3, FCC copied abuse resolution rolls down hill, pretty fast.

It's a great place to be. But then again I have never been the trendy/hip/boutique type. My small town on a river with the slow tide is fine with me. It's finally getting cold enough to go shrimping.

Seriously? Are you still running LSI11 platforms in your datacenter? People who don't know the issues with the shuttle are imagining they can drive from the trunk with no camera. I could make a 69 Cadillac Eldorado into a hybrid with a range of about 10 blocks as long as it is not up hill either way.

And you have F.O.S. tattooed on your forehead.

At least there would be a good market for replacement parts.

I would have gone ahead and not bought it now but I guess I will have to wait until AT&T stops doing the nothing they are once again trying to blame on someone else.

Please take a big handful of acorns from Steve King's bowl on the way out ;)

Sorry, it is actually 90down * 10up.

Interesting, traffic shaping based on URL path, cute, bogus, not surprising.

I have 90Mbit up * 10Mbit down lightning service from Brighthouse and it is quite real. I can say for certain it is real because I have a co-located machine at Terramark on a 1GBit link running SNMP and I move enough data both ways to be able to do the math to validate. The fact is that they deliver well over rated speeds as well as I routinely push 11Mbits sustained up and pull over 100Mbits sustained down. Sustained to me means over at least an hour down with some of
my sustain up running 8 or more hours(a lot of cameras, a lot of data pushed offsite everyday).

One thing you really need to understand in this battle for bandwidth is that you are absolutely owned by your network transit path. An interior network (you are part of your ISP's interior network in the context I refer to) may have plenty of capacity while their edges may be grossly inadequate (as in Comcast and AT&T the last time I was on their pipes) and this fact can thoroughly convolute your test results because they can (and some definitely do) divert bandwidth test traffic onto a better path than you will ever see with real traffic.

The short answer IMHO is that you can only really determine true bandwidth with a real, uncongested validation point that you can trust. Bandwidth tests are circumvented other ways too. One trick is traffic shaping with a burst that gives you full rated pipe for a minute then hacks you down step by step until you get what they decide you get sustained. That will show high bandwidth in a test but the ISP chosen rate will surface when you actually move some traffic around.

Personally, (and Larry Ellison may want to kill me for this) I have used various Oracle image downloads (not little Java tarballs but ISOs for Solaris and other various big Oracle stuff) as a basis for occasional test in the past. My trust in this methodology stems from the fact that I can routinely pull over 300Mbits from Oracle to my co-located host and I can nearly always saturate my inbound to well above spec on Brighthouse.

I use the Extech Tach+IR's laser temperature sensor to check and deliver precise meat temperatures.

You can make a test cut and in one second of laser thermal analysis you know the meat temperature to 1/10 of a degree. It is much more accurate than analog

You could also use the tach function to precisely set the rotisserie RPM but I tend to avoid dizzy meat options.

Heh, yeah it is true. The copyright infringing lawyer simulator is just another freeloading right wing teabagger. They don't respect copyright laws, game laws, the constitution, women who aren't barefoot and pregnant or much of anything else. The whackjob probably has been standing out in the rain too long and needs to change the teabag on it's forehead.