The *UCKUPC.exe patch and TheCableGuy controversy...

DDELFIERRO · Post by **DDELFIERRO** » Wed May 09, 2001 3:03 am

O.K., I'll be careful not to mention the "topic which must not be named" (apologies to J.K. Rowling)

"TheCableGuy" was mentioning this patch/program which makes certain unmentionable claims by modifying the ARP table. Certainly, I want to squeeze every last bit of performance out of my cable connection. Hell, isn't that why all of us are checking this board out anyway?
I'm not entirely sure if by skirting around the issue I have unintentionally violated the NO-UC rule. But, since this is the section regarding patches and settings... Does it work or even matter?
I use the Cablenut patch and have optimized my connection probably as well as I can. Should I even bother with the *UCKUPC.exe patch? That is from a practical point of view, disregarding of course the legal point of views, of course.
If I read TheCableGuy's initial posts correctly, he just wanted to let people know about yet another interesting tweak. The increasing attacks weren't warranted in my opinion since he may very well have been unaware about the rules. His responses could be very well self-defensive in nature. Nobody wants to just lie back in be flamed so don't expect them to take it without flaming back no matter how many posts you put up, what you do as your job, or how authoritative you can bluff your image into being. It's petty to respond to a potential flame and we should know better. Just answer the guys inquiry politely and continue to remind the poster that UC is verbotten as a topic, and hopefully the topic gets closed or fades before a classic WarBoard situation flares up.
Perhaps there should be a general rule regarding good behavior and polite responses to the probably unaware and only possibly clueless. Therefore, why blame him if the topic continues for 3 pages?!? If it was such a problem, Brent(?) should have cut it off quicker or TheCableGuy should have been narc'd on by some of the more senior posters before it even escalated so far.
Was TheCableGuy's question even explicitly answered? I lost my desire to read much into the responses when there was so much mudslinging going on. All that was necessary to state was. "No, it doesn't work and here's exactly why" or "Yes, it works but don't do it because..." or even "KeWl DoOd!!! All your bandwidth are belong to us! UC forever, capping never!!!"
If I've overstepped the rules, please at least answer the question and then politely close the topic, O.K.?

-DD

EvilAjax · Post by **EvilAjax** » Wed May 09, 2001 3:32 am

The reason we didn't tell him if it worked or not was because it has to do with uncapping. And uncapping is not tolerated in this board. We did tell him politely that uncapping shouldn't be discussed, but he went on about how it's more legal than changing your RWIN. Well, anyway, that's just my answer. Maybe other members will have different opinions, I'm sticking to mine.
Sure, uncapping would be cool.. who doesn't want more speed, right? But, it's a rule in this forum and it's not to be discussed. That is why we sorta flipped out on him. Rules... are rules

Egg · Post by **Egg** » Wed May 09, 2001 4:44 am

Oh i agree, ignorance is much better than knowledge.......?!?!?! I agree with ddelfierro most of you are to quick to judge and are at times flame happy. Get off the horse.

DDELFIERRO · Post by **DDELFIERRO** » Wed May 09, 2001 4:52 am

Personally, I agree that uncapping should be discouraged as there is limited bandwidth to be shared and who wants their neighbor to get better performance at the expense of everyone else. Although, it isn't too far a leap to state that the Cablenut tweak, while completely legal and fun, may not be completely fair to your neighbors either if they aren't sharing the wealth with you. I must admit that it is tempting to NOT mention Cablenut in the presence of my @Home node neighbors. I want as much bandwidth as I can get. I have no doubt that scores of people are using the *UCKUPC patch but are they doing anything technically wrong to their setup? No, not morally, ethically, etc. wrong but technically as related to efficiency and actual benefits. Isn't it the purpose of this forum to enlighten each other, share info and tips, and even entertain at times? What purpose does it serve to shout down those who are asking uncomfortable questions?
I see UC as a matter of overall fairness as well as a legal matter.
The fact remains that people will make every attempt to get around the artificial barriers that @Home has set up to slow us down to keep the myth of "high-speed internet" alive. Furthermore, I doubt that @Home has the ability to keep up with bandwidth demands as its customer base increases without further cutbacks. I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see a download limitation in the future. Who's fault is that? @Home's and their advisor's fault. Do you ever hear of fleets of additional servers/routers/nodes being set up to ensure quality service? No, you don't. All I ever get is some support guy who (seriously) states that I must have some weird version of Windows since I can't get into real-time DOS and was amazed that I refused to install the @Home software and proxy settings! No wonder why so many people want to UC... They want the bandwidth that they believe they are paying for and are being denied in order to "protect us".
To simply ignore the topic of UC is not the way to go. Supressing knowledge has never solved any problems that I can come up with. Discussing UC is NOT inappropriate for this forum. Against the rules, perhaps. But not inappropriate. It is in fact directly related to high speed Internet connectivity and as such, it deserves a place here in the forum. Can you legitimately state that UC is off-topic here?
If refusing to discuss UC is some sort of legally-binding agreement that Speedguide entered into with @Home, then that's pretty sad as I don't think the members of this forum give a rat's ass what @Home thinks of them. What about the non-@Home customers? Shouldn't they be able to learn the forbidden knowledge?
O.K., if tweaking the ARP table is tantamount to UC, what makes the other tweaks not? Is tweaking the ARP table advisable or not? Can @Home really control what I decide to use as my settings? If so, what's to keep them from branding Cablenut's tweaks illegal? Don't I have the right to tweak my ARP table as I see fit?

-DD

EvilAjax · Post by **EvilAjax** » Wed May 09, 2001 5:04 am

DDELFIERRO, check your PM. (private message) I'm sure you know how to get to it, click "My Profile" and it should be there.

Egg · Post by **Egg** » Wed May 09, 2001 5:07 am

@Home isnt even being fair about the cap. I have Comcast@home hand have "paid for" 3 seperate ips so i dont have to deal with the headache if solving NAT and routing issues. I still have a 16kbyte cap that has to be shared between 3 computers. I admit ive tried UPC and have tried it untill i was blue in the face and i never got it to work. I pay good money for a service that slows down to a crawl when all three connections that i pay extra money for are in use. And when i call to complain, I end up complaing to someone to doesnt know the difference between bits and bytes. The whole thing is frustrating and theres got to be a better way to get around the problem.

Juggernaut · Post by **Juggernaut** » Wed May 09, 2001 5:05 pm

very intelligent posts DDELFIERRO. The issue of UC has been discussed several times here in the past, which has eventually brought up the rule that UC is not talked about here. I've been here for a while and there have been discussions about UC...it is from those experiences that UC is not tolerated here anymore. TheCableGuy started to get flamed because he refused to obey by the rules that are here, even after he was told countless times about them.

The reason that UC is not talked about here anymore, is because it is not possible to do from your end. The caps are controlled at their headend and have nothing to do with u'r cable modem itself. As with the Cablenut tweaks being deemed illegal? and it being unfair to u'r neighbours because u'r getting extra bandwidth...the fact about those tweaks is, all they do is optimize the way u'r computer handles the data coming to it...it does not increase the amount of data coming to it. You can feel free to tell u'r neighbours about Speedguide.net and Cablenut.com and encourage them to use the tweaks, because you will not see a slowdown on your computer. They are just optimizing the way that Windows handles the incoming data. Windows is not originally optimized for broadband connections, we make it optimized

It's the same thing as the users that use an untweaked Windows box and then switch over to a Linux box that is more optimized for broadband (not always the case) - they see a speed increase, but they have not touched anything.

As to "tweaking" the arp table in u'r cable modem, this can be seen as illegal because you are tampering with your cable company's hardware, not your own computer. It's along the lines as if you open up the cable modem and start messing around in there. And as Egg discovered, it did not help at all and serves no purpose - again because the caps are controlled at their end.

TheCableGuy · Post by **TheCableGuy** » Wed May 09, 2001 6:12 pm

The tweaks I use are just the same, if you only knew!

Storm90 · Post by **Storm90** » Wed May 09, 2001 8:06 pm

DDELEFIERRO. It was in the begaining answered nicely. But the question got to the point .Where it was repeated to much. I have to agree with you. But yes I will addmit I got a little ticked to. Only because of a few post he wrote back. But I have applogized. If he would have word it a different way.Maybe some of the people would have not jumped him. I jump him because of what he said about the Tweaks around here. Plus I use to work for a cable company and no first hand what can happen if you are caught. You have a point and so does EVilAjax and juggermaut. Read the post. He knew the rule.Plus instisted on aruging about it.
I also jump him because he jump a few people here who really do try to help out. Most usally if you check back most of us do answer nicely. But if attacked after,Yes they will tell who ever off.

Rlscb · Post by **Rlscb** » Wed May 09, 2001 8:32 pm

hey cableguy could i get the patch to uh um look at the pretty icons lmao my email is rlscb@mediaone.net

HalfLifer · Post by **HalfLifer** » Wed May 09, 2001 10:40 pm

Only works On LANcity modems and they fixed it

Wont work bud

DDELFIERRO · Post by **DDELFIERRO** » Thu May 10, 2001 2:56 am

Well, now!
I knew that an intelligent, coherent, non-flamebaiting discussion could be had regarding *UCKUPC and its claims.
I'm becoming convinced that it just doesn't work (or at least for me) as I really don't have any control from my end as to how big a data pipeline I get which is far different with optimizing the efficiency of receiving the data through the pipeline I have.
@Home cripples me to receiving at a garden hose rate when what I'd really like is a fire hose rate. But of course, this is in the best interests of the other users on my node so we can all have our own little garden hoses at the same time. A tad saccharine example-wise, I admit, but I believe the analogy is correct.
But my goodness, isn't the very idea of UC intoxicating? Kind of like thinking of what to buy with all my CA Lottery winnings someday!!!

lance-tek · Post by **lance-tek** » Thu May 10, 2001 6:01 am

Even the slightest mention of UC and people are jumping in and asking for it.

I thought about it for a while and then pulled my head outta my A** and realized that the consequences were not worth it.

I would think that is why it is not talked about (legalities) I mean the whole thing could turn ugly and possible get a lot more peeps in trouble than just the person doin it. It could result in the forum itself being in a legal matter. BIG reason not to talk about UC.

DDELFIERRO · Post by **DDELFIERRO** » Thu May 10, 2001 2:31 pm

I still feel that the most sensible policy would be to have an open and candid discussion regarding the subject. UC is worthy of a forum all its own. There are some people who are quite vocal about their opposition to UC. From a legal point of view, as long as the forum doesn't advocate and directly facilitate UC outright then I fail to see any liability it could incur.
The argument that UC is illegal/immoral/rude/downright un-Smurfy and an abombination before God and therefore must not even be mentioned is silly. Anyone can take an opposing view on any subject and state the above reasons as to why it should be banned. You can find thousands of sites on the Web and books detailing exactly how to blow up your Grandmother into fine dust particles yet they get away with it because of the disclaimer "Strictly for Informational Use Only." I believe that this loophole also should apply to UC.
This forum should be mature enough to convince potential UC'rs that UC is a myth and that no program will give you access to a magic switch back at the @Home server ranch that gives you (and you ALONE, you lucky bastard!!!) unlimited bandwidth to abuse as you see fit. Only cold, pure logic will convince many of us. Even I am only nearly totally convinced. Maybe it's like religion - I don't need to see/experience the proof myself but yet I still believe.
So I continue to argue that ignorance is far from bliss. Look how much good it did for teenage pregnancy, AIDS, Apartheid and countless other ills we've seen in this world.