Originally Posted by Noah C. Rosenfield
I am really disappointed in the fact that all online gaming gets little to no bandwidth. Net Enforcer, or whatever it is they use, really screws me over. I was told it was put in during the Napster era to stop all the bandwidth usage from that, but that's done now! Napster doesn't exist anymore, so don't you think it's time for a new system? Even during times when the overall campus usage is low I can't get a decent connection. It's always laggy. I think this is dumb. Why don't we get something new?
Sorry if you are disappointed, but I want to at least clarify some things. The NetEnforcer is the new product, purchased & integrated this year. What we had during the Napster days was a product called Packetshaper by Packeteer. In the months leading up to acquiring the Packetshaper, the internet had become completely unusable, much like what would happen if we turned off the NetEnforcer now.
As you have said, Napster doesn't exist anymore- at least, not in the same way. But BitTorrent does. And Gnutella, Blubster, Ares, eDonkey, Soulseek and many many others.
Believe it or not, we're constantly trying to find ways to improve service and optimize the NetEnforcer in the way it best suits the entire Drew community.
Now for the important part. We do not actively limit bandwidth and reduce priority for anything except P2P programs, such as with the examples I listed above. We do however try and guarantee a certain level of reliability to mission critical applications like EMail, Web, DNS, IM even, and any kind of online learning resource. There may be times where these applications are being so heavily used that lower priority classifications like Games would not have as much bandwidth to work with.
Let's just say, I wouldn't be so quick to blame Drew's network whenever something on the internet is slow. Even on an average day like today, I've been monitoring our connection and we've had plenty of free bandwidth available for the better part of the day. If I started up an online game right now, provided there was a clear connection from here to the remote server (-- keep in mind you can go through 10-20 hosts to get to a remote site, each of which can lag your connection, or the remote site itself could just be lagging), there's no reason why it shouldn't work fine- There's plenty of bandwidth for it, and no restrictions in place that would reduce the quality or speed of the connection.
Hope I answered some of your questions and concerns. Like I said we are always trying to improve the way the NetEnforcer is configured and to make the most out of our internet bandwidth.