Erik

Coupi - I want to help so I need some more information from you or it's going to be really hard. I need to see a trace route from your computer to ours. Open a command window and at the prompt type "tracert combatace.com" just like Cliff7600 did above. I've done some preliminary testing but without a route structure to you my ISP can't contact the upstream. We're on a 10GBs down 1GBs up port which is equivalent to 125Mbs up in theory so speed shouldn't be an issue. Here's a test result from our machine. Give me the above information and I'll get it to them so they can do the research. Thanks.

From all our families to yours. Have a happy and festive thanksgiving filled with family, football, and friends. Be safe out there. Happy Thanksgiving!

That's just weird not a single router responded to an ICMP request until you got to us. 156ms to us from France is really good. I'm surprised your speeds would be slow. Have you contacted your ISPs about this and if so what did they say?

In the second one I see a timeout error, that's packet loss which means slow connection speeds. Can you trace route to us and provide the output? Do the same thing as you did to ping but instead type C:> tracert combatace.com Then provide the results. Thank you.

Ec There's different ways to mitigate this problem. Certainly restoring to a backup is one of them. In my past experience it's been hit and miss and not always foolproof. I always recommend slaving the drive and scanning it first, then restoring as needed if available.

As a side note. If you can remove the hard drive and connect it to another machine and then scan that drive by itself it will usually detect anything on that drive since the OS and malware isn't loaded. Since you're just connecting the drive to another machine that machine will just recognize the drive as a bunch of files on another disk. Also this type of scan is much faster and much more reliable. Most antivirus have the ability to scan just a single location and in your case it would be the new drive you attached which is the suspect drive. If that's not an option for you most antivirus will have a boot disk that can do the same thing but without having to load any part of the OS. These would be my recommended solutions regardless of which antivirus you use most of them will handle it just fine. If the scan comes back negative then you can consider verifying (repairing) the OS with an install disk. Lastly would be the restore method as this is usually not an option anyway as malware usually shuts that down on first run. If you try to restore and there are no restore points or if it's turned off you'll know you've got malware on your machine. The Last Hail Mary should be reloading an operating system and if you do that backup first, zero the drive, then reload. Hope that helps, good luck.

Coupi - I put in a trouble ticket for this. Routing to you from us has some issues in the transatlantic hop but I have no idea why we're routing that way unless you're on a DSL line. Either way it appears it's in the carryover to Europe which is totally out of our hands. I'll see what our upstream can tell me, don't hold your breath though it's beyond them as well. Thanks.

Look I'm tired of arguing with you over this. Don't take my word for anything. Read it for yourself. Certainly you can't and won't discredit Harvard University. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/so-who-owns-the-internet/ Deuces

All I can do is shake my head at this point. In the 1980s the National Science Foundation. [1][2] Funding continues to date to upgrade and modernize routes for use. Yes their is private involvement but not at the level of the government. (BTW this is a world wide philosophy not just specific to the USA) However, if you believe that any internet traffic isn't monitored by the government and the NSA [3] doesn't watch every bit that transitions our networks then I'd like to sell you the Washington Memorial. The infrastructure was built by design with national security and defense in mind. You don't get that without the word Federal and that means taxpayer dollars. If you call the latency of satellite acceptable by all means buy it. [4] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access *specifically look at the part about latency and it being roughly 20 times slower than land based systems

The real shame is that senseless dig at some obscure point that somehow the services satellite provide are equivalent to the high speed network and fiber optic connection system we the tax payers already built.

Holy eye rage. They're burning. You poor lads in the UK.

You're not taking flack for anything that I'm aware of. As a political representative you certainly have to have a thick skin when it comes to debating a topic. That said to what esteemed position have you been elected?

If you don't want to get involved this image may be very real sooner than you think. Join us here. We need your vote to tell congress, federal government, and big business, NO. http://combatace.com/topic/84316-net-neutrality-urgent/page-4?do=findComment&comment=679973

Given my age that's a very broad stroke with a pen there. I'm very involved in a lot of things, this one just has merit and substance here. I don't care how their voices are heard I only care that everyone gets the option before they get handed the bill.

Your storage limit is a function of your member type. Since you're a new member you have a smaller storage space. With time and posts your member status will change and your storage space will increase.

Don't let congress or the FCC fool you into believing that they are interested in protecting the internet. Tell congress now that they need to leave the basic principles of the internet in place. We do not need congressional oversight, federal oversight, or big business oversight. The internet belongs to each and every one of us. We've already started to compromise it's basic ideas and freedoms. We need to stand together and say no, the rest of the free nations are depending on us, we are depending on us. Take a stand let your voice be heard. Signature needed: Tell Congress you're not fooled by Comcast's lies. It takes less than a minute. Net neutrality is not a partisan issue. Since the Internet was built it's been based on a few basic principles: like the idea that everyone's data should move at the same speed, and no government or corporation should interfere or decide what you can see and do online. That's not a liberal or conservative idea. It's just a good idea. Everyone from venture capitalists to environmentalists support it. [1] But now that we're potentially days away from getting a rule to prevent Cable company F*$kery, monopolies like Comcast and Verizon are doubling down on manipulating the process: they're calling in all their favors in Congress by tapping the offices of everyone they donated to. [2] And, it's working. Despite net neutrality being obvious policy, their pals in Congress are working to screw things up again by making this into a partisan circus, and unleashing Cable propaganda. All to take focus away from the facts: the Internet has thrived with net neutrality for 20 years, and we need to keep the net neutral to keep it awesome. Tell Congress you're not fooled by Comcast's lies and won't tolerate partisan nonsense. Click here to take action. Fortunately, the public isn't fooled. We know that net neutrality is not "regulating the Internet." It's just ground rules that PREVENT mega-corporations like Comcast and governments from regulating the Internet in their own interest. This Friday is the last day for the FCC to come out with a proposal for full Title II reclassification. If they don't, part of the blame rests with Congress, who have been muddying the waters on this issue even though there is a clear public consensus. Sign the petition to your lawmakers: tell them you're not fooled by lies or partisan politics and you want them to support real net neutrality. We're close. Really close. But this fight is going to get uglier before we win. FOIA'd documents that were just released show just how deep the rabbit hole goes, and just how cozy the relationship between the FCC and the telecoms really is. [3] Stay vigilant. Check your facts. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet and DEFINITELY don't believe what you see on Cable TV. We've come this far -- we've taken Title II reclassification from something that was impossible to something that now seems nearly inevitable. We're ready to take it home and we're proud to have you on the team. We put together a quick website as an easy resource to counteract Cable lies about net neutrality. Check it out and share! https://www.donttrustcable.com/ Let us know if you have other Cable lies we should debunk there. [1] Battle for the Net. https://www.battleforthenet.com/#team-internet [2] Furnas, Alexander and Lee Drutman. "How telecoms and cable have dominated net neutrality lobbying". Sunlight Foundation. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/05/16/how-telecoms-and-cable-have-dominated-net-neutrality-lobbying/ [3] Leopold, Jason. "Net neutrality emails reveal cozy 'social network' between FCC and telecoms". Vice Magazine. https://news.vice.com/article/net-neutrality-emails-reveal-a-cozy-social-network-between-the-fcc-and-telecoms

LOL the link takes you to your attachments and is different for everyone, meaning you see yours they see theirs. You deleted my link.

No there is no image limit like that. You may be hitting an image size restriction greater than the allowed Width X Height. Or the post size maximum meaning a single post can only be so big (only so many pictures in one post). Try including just one image and tell me if it errors and what that error says. As to imageshack there are no restrictions you can link images there but the same max post size will still be in place. Let me know.

Typhoid your argument is wasted on me. You somehow have the belief that Net Neutrality means FCC regulated. That simply isn't true. Net Neutrality means that we don't want it regulated by the cable companies or the FCC. Your argument is moot, in fact you're more a proponent for my case than an opponent. Leave the internet alone, leave net neutrality in place, bottom line.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT It's very clear that the current model works even at the rates we pay, which by the way are high in comparison to the rest of the world. Just take a look at Comcast's P&L statements ---------------> http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NASDAQ/Company/Comcast-Corp/Financial-Statement/Income-Statement That's a net income of $6,816,000,000.00 USD. I'm not sure what their adjusted gross is but it's big enough to make them the second largest lobbyist in the USA. I might also mention that we the tax payers subsidized a lot of the build out through our taxes. They are using our money to charge us more. That's just backasswards. Talk about paying for what you only use. Wish that was the case with our taxes.

I support Net Neutrality and the Freedom of the internet. I do not want cable companies or the federal government to regulate the internet. ALL traffic should be treated as equal. If you believe the same go to http://fcc.gov/comments NOW and voice your opinion. http://FCC.GOV/COMMENTS The proceeding number 14-28 Speak your mind about the issue for or against. Let's all do this now and if you're confused about what Net Neutrality is watch this.

Typhoid you're mistaken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality This is what is in place now that we are trying to protect. You stated you are in opposition of this which puts you on the side of regulation, throttling, discrimination of traffic etc. You said you were in opposition of POTUS not me now you're trying to convince me that I'm fighting for what you stand for? Wow talk circular arguments. I stand for net neutrality in all senses of the meaning as described above in the wikipedia write up. If you stand on the opposite side, good luck or retract what you said and lets agree this is what we both want. Holy crikee

Typhoid all due respect but no, just no. Can you imagine our equipment on a satellite connection? You're just looking at this from the wrong perspective. Where do you think all these internet sites you visit connect their equipment? This isn't just about consumers it's about every aspect of the internet business from the consumer to the provider. It takes both to work and that's not mentioning the backbone carriers and every little end point that they connect to. Traffic can't be regulated, it's worked all these years as is and somehow you can justify changing it with judicial proceedings. Net Neutrality needs to stay in place. That's the reality. Whatever windmill you're tilting at has no point in this discussion.

Net Neutrality just needs to remain as a protection for consumers and businesses, if it were to be reversed (which is what these provider giants want) that would be a huge blow to all of us. The FCC as a regulatory commission will have the final say but as the name implies Federal Communication Commission the guidance will most likely come from the federal side and not the public sector or private sector.

I don't even know what I just read right there. As for the Netflix thing. Comcast forced them into an agreement by throttling their customers use of their streaming. Ultimately the agreement came in the way of an agreement for an undisclosed amount to use Comcast exclusively for Netflix' upstream. If that wasn't enough Xfinity which is Comcast owns Netflix now. So is something as basic at net neutrality important, you bet. If you don't think so just sit back and not get involved believing the giants like Comcast are in business to serve your needs and provide cost effective access to their programming which by the way includes the internet because they use the FCC governed channels of broadcast to stream the internet to your home or business, same with all other providers. If you remember the passing of the analog system (antennas on your roof) the move to digital was designed to give companies like this greater ability to split the existing channels for uses such as internet. But I'm not here to preach a position just to make you aware. How you decide to give your input on these ideas is up to you. Short of that if you're in a agreement, thank you. If not, it's your right to have your own educated opinion. No hard feelings. The discussion has been opened for all and that's the important part. Good luck out there. :)