Jetstream changes

[Nicholas Lee]

Friend mention he got a letter today from Telecom.

Pointed to this page: http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,3900,204368-201502,00.html

He should they were upping him from 256 to 2M or moving the JetStream
Surf Flat Rate plan to the JetStream Plus plan. Haven't seen the letter
yet.

Anyone know any specifics?

Nicholas

[ADSL-List - Sam]

Interesting...
"We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
latency if you use delay sensitive applications."

It sounds like they are saying that they will be DELIBERATELY INCREASING the
latency on standard DSL!! Surely not!!?? Prehaps this is a consequence of
performance improvements for other (eg; business, dedicated connections
etc.) networking services?

I also wonder if these changes will get around the current need for a line
reconnect in order to change the speed rate (for speed capping purposes)?

Sam.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-***@unixathome.org [mailto:owner-***@unixathome.org]On
Behalf Of Nicholas Lee
Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2004 8:48 p.m.
To: NZ ADSL List
Subject: Jetstream changes



Friend mention he got a letter today from Telecom.

Pointed to this page:
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,3900,204368-201502,00.html

He should they were upping him from 256 to 2M or moving the JetStream
Surf Flat Rate plan to the JetStream Plus plan. Haven't seen the letter
yet.

Anyone know any specifics?

Nicholas
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
To unsubscribe: send mail to ***@lists.unixathome.org
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Lennon - Orcon]

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
"We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
latency if you use delay sensitive applications."

Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much different to
gamers?)

Thanks
Craig

[Matt Riddell]

Post by Lennon - Orcon

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
"We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
latency if you use delay sensitive applications."

Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much
different to gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother.

I'll also tell all of my friends that optus 32 player servers are no
longer playable via Telecom. Hmmm...what should I do...go with the
competition...oh wait there is none here in Dunedin (that won't use
telecom's connection).

Grrrrrr!!!!

And you say we don't have a total monopoly? This is so crap.
--
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
_______________________________________________

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)

[Keith & Deby]

" Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much
different to gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother."

Im a gamer from way back, In a top Aussie/NZ squad for 4 to 5 yrs, play
organised tourneys , matches, inter squad ladders etc
www.an-squad.net
match play etc.Also run the odd LAN
Im not a top player but lot better than average.
Currently One hits a server between 90 and 110 ms. This is not your true
lag, machine lag has then got to be added in.
Taking what I consider a reasonable gaming machine, O/S stripped out of
rubbish, services chopped right back, no virus scanners/firewalls or added
progs, Custom built p4 3gig asus motherboard, 1 gig ddr ram, hyperyhreading,
Ati 9600xt 256 video card;
Lag in reality is now 170 to 280ms and even higher on lower end machines.
If one takes a normal retail brand name machine, although maybe similar
specs, they are not as fast and that is what most households have.Also they
are not stripped out and have allsorts of rubbish running in the background.
They currently play real lag 260 to 380.
Now throw in that servers/ games are running 50 even 150 player games, once
over around 36 players the amount of info the local machine has to process,
and latency climbs real fast, even on custom high end machines.
At the end of the day, telecom is making high end gamer life difficult, even
on current latency with games upto 12months old, the ave joe bloggs near to
impossible to be competitive.Telecom just is not keeping up with the
technology of the modern releases of games.
Combine telecom, new games requirements, and NZ goes into the stoneage.

Keith



Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
"We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
latency if you use delay sensitive applications."

Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much
different to gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother.
I'll also tell all of my friends that optus 32 player servers are no
longer playable via Telecom. Hmmm...what should I do...go with the
competition...oh wait there is none here in Dunedin (that won't use
telecom's connection).
Grrrrrr!!!!
And you say we don't have a total monopoly? This is so crap.
--
Cheers,
Matt Riddell
_______________________________________________
http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Keith & Deby]

I would also like to add:
yet telecom allow p2p of which most is warez, pirated content, copywrite
infringement to take up bw way beyond anything gaming uses and disadvantage
legit gamers who pay for their games...note most modern games have
punkbuster/registration requirements to play even unrepentant servers now,
making illegal/ duplicate copies in multi play impossible unless on LAN
multiplayer.

The logic defies me



Have a Nice Day
Keith & Deby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith & Deby" <***@xtra.co.nz>
To: <***@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Keith & Deby
" Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much
different to gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother."

Im a gamer from way back, In a top Aussie/NZ squad for 4 to 5 yrs, play
organised tourneys , matches, inter squad ladders etc
www.an-squad.net
match play etc.Also run the odd LAN
Im not a top player but lot better than average.
Currently One hits a server between 90 and 110 ms. This is not your true
lag, machine lag has then got to be added in.
Taking what I consider a reasonable gaming machine, O/S stripped out of
rubbish, services chopped right back, no virus scanners/firewalls or added
progs, Custom built p4 3gig asus motherboard, 1 gig ddr ram,

hyperyhreading,

Post by Keith & Deby
Ati 9600xt 256 video card;
Lag in reality is now 170 to 280ms and even higher on lower end machines.
If one takes a normal retail brand name machine, although maybe similar
specs, they are not as fast and that is what most households have.Also they
are not stripped out and have allsorts of rubbish running in the background.
They currently play real lag 260 to 380.
Now throw in that servers/ games are running 50 even 150 player games, once
over around 36 players the amount of info the local machine has to process,
and latency climbs real fast, even on custom high end machines.
At the end of the day, telecom is making high end gamer life difficult, even
on current latency with games upto 12months old, the ave joe bloggs near to
impossible to be competitive.Telecom just is not keeping up with the
technology of the modern releases of games.
Combine telecom, new games requirements, and NZ goes into the stoneage.
Keith
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
"We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for

various

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including

some

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
latency if you use delay sensitive applications."

Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much
different to gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother.
I'll also tell all of my friends that optus 32 player servers are no
longer playable via Telecom. Hmmm...what should I do...go with the
competition...oh wait there is none here in Dunedin (that won't use
telecom's connection).
Grrrrrr!!!!
And you say we don't have a total monopoly? This is so crap.
--
Cheers,
Matt Riddell
_______________________________________________
http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Biff]

I also was a CS player, lag now is an issue (from Christchurch 256x128K),
one of my team mates in ChCh on Telstra Cable has a ping to the same server
I am playing on of 21/26, me well on a good day 78!
Now about networks??????????
I thought delay was a function of available bandwidth and the number of
hops, not the physical distance, especially when talking fibre?
Cheers
Biff

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-***@unixathome.org [mailto:owner-***@unixathome.org] On Behalf
Of Keith & Deby
Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2004 8:30 a.m.
To: ***@lists.unixathome.org
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

" Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much
different to gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother."

Im a gamer from way back, In a top Aussie/NZ squad for 4 to 5 yrs, play
organised tourneys , matches, inter squad ladders etc
www.an-squad.net
match play etc.Also run the odd LAN
Im not a top player but lot better than average.
Currently One hits a server between 90 and 110 ms. This is not your true
lag, machine lag has then got to be added in.
Taking what I consider a reasonable gaming machine, O/S stripped out of
rubbish, services chopped right back, no virus scanners/firewalls or added
progs, Custom built p4 3gig asus motherboard, 1 gig ddr ram, hyperyhreading,
Ati 9600xt 256 video card;
Lag in reality is now 170 to 280ms and even higher on lower end machines.
If one takes a normal retail brand name machine, although maybe similar
specs, they are not as fast and that is what most households have.Also they
are not stripped out and have allsorts of rubbish running in the background.
They currently play real lag 260 to 380.
Now throw in that servers/ games are running 50 even 150 player games, once
over around 36 players the amount of info the local machine has to process,
and latency climbs real fast, even on custom high end machines.
At the end of the day, telecom is making high end gamer life difficult, even
on current latency with games upto 12months old, the ave joe bloggs near to
impossible to be competitive.Telecom just is not keeping up with the
technology of the modern releases of games.
Combine telecom, new games requirements, and NZ goes into the stoneage.

Keith



Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Matt Riddell

Post by Lennon - Orcon

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
"We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
latency if you use delay sensitive applications."

Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much
different to gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother.
I'll also tell all of my friends that optus 32 player servers are no
longer playable via Telecom. Hmmm...what should I do...go with the
competition...oh wait there is none here in Dunedin (that won't use
telecom's connection).
Grrrrrr!!!!
And you say we don't have a total monopoly? This is so crap.
--
Cheers,
Matt Riddell
_______________________________________________
http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
To unsubscribe: send mail to ***@lists.unixathome.org
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Steve Phillips]

Post by Biff
I thought delay was a function of available bandwidth and the number of
hops, not the physical distance, especially when talking fibre?

Delay is a function of all of these.

Available bandwidth is not really that much of an issue (we are talking
the transistion of say, 1bit of information, using all your bandwidth
just makes the transmission more efficient in the usage of your circuit)

Number of hops increases latency as each hop tends to cause processing delay
distance increases latency (think - drive to auckland from wellington,
takes longer than drive to palmy from wellington)

in this case, what we are talking about is clocking speed (serialisation
delay)

if you put a bit on the wire and its is a 10 lane highway and it travels
at 100km/h down it it will reach then end faster than a bit on the same
highway traveling at 10km/h

(assume for this purpose that the highway is unused)

Hence, when yo umove from an 8000mbps link to a 256mbps link (think
km/h) the bits will take longer to reach the far end irrespective of
distance, hops etc. (this assumes that the only thing changing is
clocking speed of the line)

NB: this probably contains technical errors but is an attempt to
somplify things for the thought impaired. if it is too simple for you
then you are probably not thought impaired so please don't bother
complaining.

[Tom Parker]

Post by Steve Phillips
Hence, when yo umove from an 8000mbps link to a 256mbps link (think
km/h) the bits will take longer to reach the far end irrespective of
distance, hops etc. (this assumes that the only thing changing is
clocking speed of the line)

If they are reducing the baud rate of the line, does this increase the signal
to noise ratio? If so, could they remove the interleave to decrease the
latency?

I guess no across the board, since some people have poor lines that the
interleave is helping?

--
Tom Parker - ***@carrott.org
- http://www.carrott.org

[Biff]

Geez Steve I didn't think I was thought impaired :(
Biff

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Phillips [mailto:***@focb.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 22 October 2004 12:33 a.m.
To: Biff
Cc: ***@lists.unixathome.org
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Biff
I thought delay was a function of available bandwidth and the number of
hops, not the physical distance, especially when talking fibre?

Delay is a function of all of these.

Available bandwidth is not really that much of an issue (we are talking
the transistion of say, 1bit of information, using all your bandwidth
just makes the transmission more efficient in the usage of your circuit)

Number of hops increases latency as each hop tends to cause processing delay
distance increases latency (think - drive to auckland from wellington,
takes longer than drive to palmy from wellington)

in this case, what we are talking about is clocking speed (serialisation
delay)

if you put a bit on the wire and its is a 10 lane highway and it travels
at 100km/h down it it will reach then end faster than a bit on the same
highway traveling at 10km/h

(assume for this purpose that the highway is unused)

Hence, when yo umove from an 8000mbps link to a 256mbps link (think
km/h) the bits will take longer to reach the far end irrespective of
distance, hops etc. (this assumes that the only thing changing is
clocking speed of the line)

NB: this probably contains technical errors but is an attempt to
somplify things for the thought impaired. if it is too simple for you
then you are probably not thought impaired so please don't bother
complaining.
--
Steve.

[Keith & Deby]

IMAO!!!
" Geez Steve I didn't think I was thought impaired :("

Now REALLY look at that statement closely, think it thru lol

Theres often cross words said, very little humour.lol

Have a good weekend guys

Have a Nice Day
Keith & Deby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Biff" <***@paradise.net.nz>
To: "'Steve Phillips'" <***@focb.co.nz>
Cc: <***@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: Jetstream changes

Post by Biff
Geez Steve I didn't think I was thought impaired :(
Biff
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, 22 October 2004 12:33 a.m.
To: Biff
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Biff
I thought delay was a function of available bandwidth and the number of
hops, not the physical distance, especially when talking fibre?

Delay is a function of all of these.
Available bandwidth is not really that much of an issue (we are talking
the transistion of say, 1bit of information, using all your bandwidth
just makes the transmission more efficient in the usage of your circuit)
Number of hops increases latency as each hop tends to cause processing delay
distance increases latency (think - drive to auckland from wellington,
takes longer than drive to palmy from wellington)
in this case, what we are talking about is clocking speed (serialisation
delay)
if you put a bit on the wire and its is a 10 lane highway and it travels
at 100km/h down it it will reach then end faster than a bit on the same
highway traveling at 10km/h
(assume for this purpose that the highway is unused)
Hence, when yo umove from an 8000mbps link to a 256mbps link (think
km/h) the bits will take longer to reach the far end irrespective of
distance, hops etc. (this assumes that the only thing changing is
clocking speed of the line)
NB: this probably contains technical errors but is an attempt to
somplify things for the thought impaired. if it is too simple for you
then you are probably not thought impaired so please don't bother
complaining.
--
Steve.
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Steve Barr]

Post by Matt Riddell
When it's already 140ms on the servers I play games on, 30ms extra makes
it unplayable. I'm going to post this to Microsoft and Sony. I was
going to buy their products for net connection and games, but now with
this increase I won't bother.
I'll also tell all of my friends that optus 32 player servers are no
longer playable via Telecom. Hmmm...what should I do...go with the
competition...oh wait there is none here in Dunedin (that won't use
telecom's connection).
Grrrrrr!!!!
And you say we don't have a total monopoly? This is so crap.
--
Cheers,
Matt Riddell
_______________________________________________

Lets be fair here - the largest component of the latency is solely due to
the path length of the trans-Tasman or trans-Pacific links and nothing to do
with Telecom at all. In fact, if Telecom hadn't stumped up with the
$2Billion+ for the Southern Cross cable network, you'd be looking at 250ms++
+ (probably around 400ms rtt)for a satellite link.

To fix the problem you either have to find a medium that will transmit at
speeds higher than the speed of light, or move to another country ;-)

Steve

[Matt Riddell]

Post by Steve Barr
Lets be fair here - the largest component of the latency is solely due to
the path length of the trans-Tasman or trans-Pacific links and nothing to do
with Telecom at all. In fact, if Telecom hadn't stumped up with the
$2Billion+ for the Southern Cross cable network, you'd be looking at 250ms++
+ (probably around 400ms rtt)for a satellite link.
To fix the problem you either have to find a medium that will transmit at
speeds higher than the speed of light, or move to another country ;-)

Ahhhh...so it's travelling faster than the speed of light at the moment?

Post by Steve Barr
Steve

--
Cheers,

Matt Riddell
_______________________________________________

http://www.sineapps.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html)
http://www.sineapps.com/rssfeed.php (Daily Asterisk News - rss)

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much different to gamers?)

It does to some extent although how much is probably hard to quantify. Bear in mind too with 30ms increase for example, this means Australian servers will now be e.g. 140 ms instead of 110 ms.

The fact they they're changing to capping speed at the DSLAM is not really new news. It has been mentioned a number of times before. However the above is new, at least to me. I assume it means they're introducing some better QOS management. In theory this might be an advantage for gamers who use other apps while playing games or share their connections, if set up properly that is. But it remains to be seen how well they set it up. Their record is not so impressive.

Also, given Telecom's past history of hating P2P, will this mean they're going to give ultra low priority to such traffic? I would argue this is unfair. I personally don't see any reason P2P should have a lower priority then other large file downloads such as with FTP and HTTP altho I do recognise the nature of P2P's multiple connections means that frequently, P2P apps will often end up taking more bandwidth than other downloads if nothing else is done.

If they had properly introduced UBS and were also offering 2mbit's to providers, I would say how they choose to manage the QOS of their retail offering is up to them but since they're not, they're only offering i-UBS and 256k I think we should have the right to query how their policies are going to affect us.

He should they were upping him from 256 to 2M or moving the JetStream
Surf Flat Rate plan to the JetStream Plus plan. Haven't seen the letter
yet.
Anyone know any specifics?

I think what you're saying is he is expecting to be moved to the 2mbit Jetstream Plus plan? Well assuming he hasn't signed up for UBS then when they do implement these changes, I suspect he will be moved to the JS Plus plan since it doesn't make sense for Telecom to limit the Dslam to 256k and then change the cap to 2mbit later. However when this will be carried out is anyones guess. Since Telecom have set a launch date for the 2mbit plans to 25th October, it should be soon but who knows? In theory, they should be working on all the people who signed up for UBS first but who's thinking they won't be doing this?

I also wonder if these changes will get around the current need for a line
reconnect in order to change the speed rate (for speed capping purposes)?

I suspect it will. I've been wondering about this myself for a while. With 2mbit, they're going to need effective limiting systems. Something which requires disconnects is not going to cut it. I would suspect the Dslam cap is going to remain constant since my understanding is this generally requires visiting the exchange/node to modify. Even if it can be done remotely, I suspect it won't be automated. In any case, I believe this will require a disconnect/reconnect but it will be automatic/forced.

However, since they are also introducing some new QOS which is going to add latency, I suspect the 64k limit will be introduced at this point. Your Dslam cap will remain the same. This will probably not require a disconnect. One thing I wonder, how will Telecom handle this cap? Will they be strict, once over 10gb you're capped? In theory they could introduce a gradual capping system (e.g. 10 gb you go down to 256k, 20gb to 64k) or even a 'when necessary' (only cap you when others need the bandwidth) or some other capping model if they wanted to.

[Brian Gibbons]

Post by Lennon - Orcon
Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much different to
gamers?)

Wonderfull,. just ef-ing wonderfull...

Our "broadband" offering has gone from 8mbit/s peak, 40ms RTT, to 256kbps
peak, 70ms RTT.

The bandwidth drop killed most business applications and now they are going
to kill the gamers.

One wonders where the gun will point next.

This aint broadband no matter whose dictionary you use.

Craig, is the 70ms RTT confined to UBS or will it also apply to Telecom
retail DSL users (FastIPDirect).

Cheers

BG

[Craig Whitmore]

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Brian Gibbons
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:18 AM
To: Lennon - Orcon; ADSL-List - Sam; NZ ADSL List
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Lennon - Orcon
Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much

different
to

Post by Lennon - Orcon
gamers?)

Wonderfull,. just ef-ing wonderfull...
Our "broadband" offering has gone from 8mbit/s peak, 40ms RTT, to 256kbps
peak, 70ms RTT.
The bandwidth drop killed most business applications and now they are going
to kill the gamers.
One wonders where the gun will point next.
This aint broadband no matter whose dictionary you use.
Craig, is the 70ms RTT confined to UBS or will it also apply to Telecom
retail DSL users (FastIPDirect).
Cheers

I presume customers who are on "Full Speed" Jetstream will not have the
DSLAM rate limit put on their port. But I really don't know if Telecom will
rate limit the "full speed" to a certain speed.

All other customers (UBS/Jetstream non full speed AFAIK will be rate limited
by what they are buying.

Thanks
Craig

[Jared Yates]

Fantastic...

I have recently made it back to NZ after a 16month long "4month" secondment
in Australia.

I have been waiting patiently to see how the whole UBS stuff (+ Xtras
anti-competetive 1/2mbit plan) was going to shake out before reconnecting
adsl.

Now I think I will go back to Australia first chance I get... LLU and
competition is a 'Good Thing'tm

J

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-***@unixathome.org [mailto:owner-***@unixathome.org] On Behalf
Of Brian Gibbons
Sent: Thursday, 21 October 2004 9:18 a.m.
To: Lennon - Orcon; ADSL-List - Sam; NZ ADSL List
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by Lennon - Orcon
Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much different to
gamers?)

Wonderfull,. just ef-ing wonderfull...

Our "broadband" offering has gone from 8mbit/s peak, 40ms RTT, to 256kbps
peak, 70ms RTT.

The bandwidth drop killed most business applications and now they are going
to kill the gamers.

One wonders where the gun will point next.

This aint broadband no matter whose dictionary you use.

Craig, is the 70ms RTT confined to UBS or will it also apply to Telecom
retail DSL users (FastIPDirect).

Cheers

BG

[Biff]

Obviously not a gamer :)
Short answer oh yesssss, big time.
Biff

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-***@unixathome.org [mailto:owner-***@unixathome.org] On Behalf
Of Lennon - Orcon
Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2004 10:10 p.m.
To: ADSL-List - Sam; NZ ADSL List
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
"We will also be managing data traffic across our network to ensure that it
is delivered with the speed and priority that is appropriate for various
broadband services. You may notice a change in performance including some
latency if you use delay sensitive applications."

Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much different to

gamers?)

Thanks
Craig
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
To unsubscribe: send mail to ***@lists.unixathome.org
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Lance Woollett]

While I don't doubt that as you work for an ISP you are in a postition
to know stuff, but everyone else in this thread (and forums that have
been quoting this) seem to be riding on this one statement as the
gospel. You say a 30 ms latency increase0, however given the new plans
are not active yet, are you able to back this statement up?

Post by Lennon - Orcon
Its about a 30ms increase in latency.. so those people who used to play
games at 40ms.. now its up to 70ms. (does this REALLY make much different to
gamers?)
Thanks
Craig

[Craig Whitmore]

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Lance Woollett
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes
While I don't doubt that as you work for an ISP you are in a postition
to know stuff, but everyone else in this thread (and forums that have
been quoting this) seem to be riding on this one statement as the
gospel. You say a 30 ms latency increase0, however given the new plans
are not active yet, are you able to back this statement up?

Hmm.. the new plans (say I-UBS _are_ available now and I'm on it + many
others).. Some other customers on Jetsurf (as far as I can tell) have also
been moved over to the new type of rate limiting.

I personally had about a 40ms.. now its 70ms after I changed over and
similar can be seen for the large amount of other customers that have been
moved over.

Thanks
Craig

[Mark Thompson]

Post by Nicholas Lee
Friend mention he got a letter today from Telecom.
Pointed to this page: http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,3900,204368-201502,00.html
He should they were upping him from 256 to 2M or moving the JetStream
Surf Flat Rate plan to the JetStream Plus plan. Haven't seen the letter
yet.

And in english?

[David Hawke]

Post by Nicholas Lee
Friend mention he got a letter today from Telecom.
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,3900,204368-201502,00.html
He should they were upping him from 256 to 2M or moving the JetStream
Surf Flat Rate plan to the JetStream Plus plan. Haven't seen the letter
yet.

All

Have likewise received the kind offer to automatically upgrade from Surf
to 2Mbit.

I have been discussing this with my ISP, and offer the following warning
with respect to the churn fee.

The new higher speed services will utilise bandwidth provided by
Telecom. They will become available in the UBS arena late in Q1, 2005.

If you elect to accept the upgrade offer at this stage, rather than say
move to your ISP's 256K UBS service, and then want to move to your ISP's
higher speed UBS service when it becomes available, you will pay the
churn fee.

The churn relates to bandwidth supplier, not ISP. Hence, if I go to the
higher speed, and then want to move to my current ISP's higher speed UBS
in March, then I will have to pay the churn fee to Telecom.


This seems to be little known - the general understanding is that the
churn fee applies if you change ISP. I have been advised that it is
*NOT* about the ISP - rather that it is the bandwidth provider


Regards

David Hawke

[Keith & Deby]

Right on the heels of the above comes this.............
"
We've got some great news about your Xtra JetStream plan - you'll soon have
a super-fast connection, and won't pay a cent more for it:

a.. Eight times the speed!: we're ramping up your download speed from
256kbs to 2mbs - that's eight times faster than your current plan. All for
the same monthly price of $79.95. The speed will make great broadband
content, like video and games, even more fun.
You don't need to do anything - we'll make the change automatically during
November and December. You'll know the upgrade has happened when you start
surfing at eight times the previous speed!"

And link to http://xtra.co.nz/newplans



Have a Nice Day
Keith & Deby
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hawke" <***@ppfort.net>
To: "ADSL Mailing List" <***@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by David Hawke

Post by Nicholas Lee
Friend mention he got a letter today from Telecom.
http://www.telecom.co.nz/content/0,3900,204368-201502,00.html
He should they were upping him from 256 to 2M or moving the JetStream
Surf Flat Rate plan to the JetStream Plus plan. Haven't seen the letter
yet.

All
Have likewise received the kind offer to automatically upgrade from Surf
to 2Mbit.
I have been discussing this with my ISP, and offer the following warning
with respect to the churn fee.
The new higher speed services will utilise bandwidth provided by
Telecom. They will become available in the UBS arena late in Q1, 2005.
If you elect to accept the upgrade offer at this stage, rather than say
move to your ISP's 256K UBS service, and then want to move to your ISP's
higher speed UBS service when it becomes available, you will pay the
churn fee.
The churn relates to bandwidth supplier, not ISP. Hence, if I go to the
higher speed, and then want to move to my current ISP's higher speed UBS
in March, then I will have to pay the churn fee to Telecom.
This seems to be little known - the general understanding is that the
churn fee applies if you change ISP. I have been advised that it is
*NOT* about the ISP - rather that it is the bandwidth provider
Regards
David Hawke
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Nicholas Lee]

Post by David Hawke
If you elect to accept the upgrade offer at this stage, rather than say
move to your ISP's 256K UBS service, and then want to move to your ISP's
higher speed UBS service when it becomes available, you will pay the
churn fee.
The churn relates to bandwidth supplier, not ISP. Hence, if I go to the
higher speed, and then want to move to my current ISP's higher speed UBS
in March, then I will have to pay the churn fee to Telecom.

This clarifies everything for me. I couldn't quite understand why 256
plans and 2M plans were almost the same price.

I suspect Telecom is concerned about other provides like WC in Auckland
and around NZ offering 2M services. Combined with the above, it provides
them a way to lock a greater profit to themselves, have greater leverage
over the ISPs, and be seen by the public/user to be offering a better
(faster) service option.


Wish Maxnet would hurry up and get a WC option sorted.

Nicholas

[David Hawke]

Post by Nicholas Lee
I suspect Telecom is concerned about other provides like WC in Auckland
and around NZ offering 2M services. Combined with the above, it provides
them a way to lock a greater profit to themselves, have greater leverage
over the ISPs, and be seen by the public/user to be offering a better
(faster) service option.
Wish Maxnet would hurry up and get a WC option sorted.

Hmmmm .... don't hold breath ... my ISP is Maxnet and they seem to be
sitting on WC at the moment (oops ... sorry). I've been pushing for WC,
but the confusion and shifting sands around UBS and Telecom's
anti-competitive offerings has meant that they have slowed down.

DavidH

Post by Nicholas Lee
Nicholas

[Nicholas Lee]

Post by David Hawke
Hmmmm .... don't hold breath ... my ISP is Maxnet and they seem to be
sitting on WC at the moment (oops ... sorry). I've been pushing for WC,
but the confusion and shifting sands around UBS and Telecom's
anti-competitive offerings has meant that they have slowed down.

At least they are on WIX now.

We can only push their buttons, and talk about changing ISPs until they
get with the program.

This is one of the things I dislike about the current market. A very
viable replacement for DSL in Auckland is stymied because several major
ISPs are busy making sure Telecom is happy.


Nicholas

[Craig Humphrey]

Err... Telecom aren't the only ones that invested in Southern Cross.
And a 30% increase in latency isn't something to be sneezed at...

What I find interesting is two things:

1. Moving the rate limiting to the DSLAM, so that your ADSL
Modem/Router will actually "connect" at your plan speed. Now I guess
that means that it's up to the DSLAM and your Modem/Router as to what to
do when you attempt to use up more than your plans speed. Time to start
implementing QoS at the customer end? Anyone know what the DSLAMs
will/are using?

2. JS Games and Remote Office being limited to connection plan speed.
The is obviously just a side effect of doing the rate limiting at the
DSLAM, but there's going to be a lot of gutted gamers and Linux/BSD
users out there who have been using the JS Games realm to access game
demo and Linux/BSD mirrors. (Hmm.. Perhaps it's just a cunning plan by
Telecom to get everyone to use higher speed (more expensive) plans.

In the long run, what we need now is for Telecom to take the rate
limiting off UBS (when ever it arrives), so that ISP's can set their own
speeds/caps/etc, then they could have things more like the corporate
plans, where you buy X amount of NZ bandwidth (especially good for
users/ISP's that peer with WIX/APE) and Y amount of International
bandwidth. But I'm just dreaming...

Later'ish
Craig

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: Jetstream changes

[snip snip]

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
Lets be fair here - the largest component of the latency is
solely due to
the path length of the trans-Tasman or trans-Pacific links
and nothing to do
with Telecom at all. In fact, if Telecom hadn't stumped up with the
$2Billion+ for the Southern Cross cable network, you'd be
looking at 250ms++
+ (probably around 400ms rtt)for a satellite link.
To fix the problem you either have to find a medium that will
transmit at
speeds higher than the speed of light, or move to another country ;-)
Steve

[Malcolm]

[apologies for top posting]
Hrm...

*prog·ress* /n./

1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in
human progress.


Lets have a look at what we are getting...

We are *losing* JSG, no more quick Linux/bsd/patch/demo downloads.
We are *gaining* 30ms.
We are getting a system that will (I'm assuming this is partially the
reason why there is a QOS change) actually rate limit when caps are reached.

How is this progress from say, the pre-UBS orcon plans (256K unlimited)?

The thing about this that I find *most* amusing is that the one of the
main points of UBS was to break down the system, so ISPs could
differentiate - and there would be different products in the market
other than the TC enforced "jet start". But they are tightening the
bolts soo tight - every ISP's plan *is* going to be exactly the same!

Progress...? Pft.. more like a TC carefully orchestrated rather large
step backwards!

</rant>


Shame...


M
[excuse the ranting]

Post by Craig Humphrey
Err... Telecom aren't the only ones that invested in Southern Cross.
And a 30% increase in latency isn't something to be sneezed at...
1. Moving the rate limiting to the DSLAM, so that your ADSL
Modem/Router will actually "connect" at your plan speed. Now I guess
that means that it's up to the DSLAM and your Modem/Router as to what to
do when you attempt to use up more than your plans speed. Time to start
implementing QoS at the customer end? Anyone know what the DSLAMs
will/are using?
2. JS Games and Remote Office being limited to connection plan speed.
The is obviously just a side effect of doing the rate limiting at the
DSLAM, but there's going to be a lot of gutted gamers and Linux/BSD
users out there who have been using the JS Games realm to access game
demo and Linux/BSD mirrors. (Hmm.. Perhaps it's just a cunning plan by
Telecom to get everyone to use higher speed (more expensive) plans.
In the long run, what we need now is for Telecom to take the rate
limiting off UBS (when ever it arrives), so that ISP's can set their own
speeds/caps/etc, then they could have things more like the corporate
plans, where you buy X amount of NZ bandwidth (especially good for
users/ISP's that peer with WIX/APE) and Y amount of International
bandwidth. But I'm just dreaming...
Later'ish
Craig

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
-----Original Message-----

[snip'd]

[Brian Gibbons]

Post by Craig Humphrey
2. JS Games and Remote Office being limited to connection plan speed.
The is obviously just a side effect of doing the rate limiting at the
DSLAM,
but there's going to be a lot of gutted gamers and Linux/BSD users

There will probably be a few gutted Remote Office users also (you....)
They wont be able to move to another UBS provider because that will kill
their Remote Office functionality. Telecom will thus retain all Remote
Office users. (Technically, Remote Office is a service available via Telecom
as a UBS provider and won't be available via other UBS providers).

Post by Craig Humphrey
In the long run, what we need now is for Telecom to take the rate
limiting off UBS (when ever it arrives), so that ISP's can set their own
speeds/caps/etc.

Smaller ISPs are capable of innovation and Telecom would not be able to
compete with them if they removed the speed caps.

So it will never happen, Telecom will clamp the bitstream speed to eliminate
the threat of innovation.

Cheers

BG

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Post by Brian Gibbons
Smaller ISPs are capable of innovation and Telecom would not be able to
compete with them if they removed the speed caps.

I agree.

Post by Brian Gibbons
So it will never happen, Telecom will clamp the bitstream speed to eliminate
the threat of innovation.

Well they have said they would offer 1 mbit in May 2005 (and 2mbit sometime later). We'll just have to wait and see. Bear in mind Telecom can't be that dumb. They must realise for all it's problems wireless is going to be able to compete in enough areas at enough speed to be a problem for them with a year or two if they stick with their silly 256k broadband.

[Brian Gibbons]

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
Well they have said they would offer 1 mbit in May 2005
(and 2mbit sometime later). We'll just have to wait and see.
Bear in mind Telecom can't be that dumb.

Dumb is not the word I would use to describe Telecom, more the opposite.

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
They must realise for all it's problems wireless is going to be able
to compete in enough areas at enough speed to be a problem for
them with a year or two if they stick with their silly 256k broadband.

Wireless will never compete with Telecom's NG network (fibre to street
cabinet)
http://www.telecom-media.co.nz/releases_detail.asp?id=3073

So the "silly 256k broadband" is just a way of slowing down the uptake of
broadband until their NG network comes online next year.

About that time they will release 1mbit/sec UBS to compete with their own
50mbit/sec NG broadband service.

Not the dumbest business plan I have seen.

Cheers

BG

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Post by Brian Gibbons

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
Well they have said they would offer 1 mbit in May 2005
(and 2mbit sometime later). We'll just have to wait and see.
Bear in mind Telecom can't be that dumb.

Dumb is not the word I would use to describe Telecom, more the opposite.

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
They must realise for all it's problems wireless is going to be able
to compete in enough areas at enough speed to be a problem for
them with a year or two if they stick with their silly 256k broadband.

Wireless will never compete with Telecom's NG network (fibre to street
cabinet)
http://www.telecom-media.co.nz/releases_detail.asp?id=3073

I would agree. But I see no indication their NG network is coming along next year as you seem to suggest. They might begin trailing it next year but I'd have to see it before I believe it'd be available widespread next year. Unless I missed it, the article you linked did not seem to be suggesting it was going to be available widespread next year anyway. Yes I agree that wireless cannot compete with wired connections in the long run, but from what I've seen so far, this might be possible in NZ given the way Telecom is behaving.

Post by Brian Gibbons
So the "silly 256k broadband" is just a way of slowing down the uptake of
broadband until their NG network comes online next year.
About that time they will release 1mbit/sec UBS to compete with their own
50mbit/sec NG broadband service.
Not the dumbest business plan I have seen.

I personally doubt Telecom will be offering widespread NG by May 2005, assuming they keep their promise of course. In any case, what's the use of 50mbit/s if you only get 10gb or 30gb or whatever dumb limit Telecom comes up with? Woohoo, I'm streaming 1080p HDTV content. Whooops I've used up my quota in a minute and need to wait to next month now.

Also, I doubt Telecom will offer 50mbit/sec when NG first appears except for ridiculous high prices options that few will consider (ala Jetstream fullspeed). They might offer 10mbit/s or something like but not 50mbit/s

[l***@ihug.co.nz]

Post by Keith & Deby
yet telecom allow p2p of which most is warez, pirated
content, copywrite infringement to take up bw way beyond
anything gaming uses and disadvantage legit gamers who pay
for their games...note most modern games have
punkbuster/registration requirements to play even
unrepentant servers now, making illegal/ duplicate copies
in multi play impossible unless on LAN multiplayer.
The logic defies me

I fail to see your point. Blocking P2P would be unfair.
Assuming that all P2P is bad and therefore should be block
is unfair to users and just plain silly. What else should
ISPs start censoring? E-mail? It's mostly spam after all.

Punkbuster although by it's nature of preventing hacked
clients may have some effect on piracy but very minimal.
It's intended to stop cheaters not pirates. Of course, many
cheaters use stolen CD keys and such because they're quickly
banned but whether or not they pirate games is unknown and
irrelevant.

The thing which prevents pirated clients is not punkbuster
but CD-key verfication. You can hack your client to bits but
this is not going to get around CD-key verfication. If
you're not verified (by the trusted external server run by
the publisher or whoever) you can't play on a normal server
simple as that (unless the company screws up). Of course it
is possible to hack a server and the clients so verification
is not necessary but punkbuster doesn't help here since
it'll just be disabled/removed.

Having said that Telecom have been very anti-P2P. I suspect
the reason they have not yet placed any limitations on JS:S
etc is since they are still not operating a proper wholesale
model, but with their new QOS who knows that's going to
happen?

I also fail to see what your gripe with P2P users is anyway.
Telecom does not offer free national and all their plans are
data capped. If P2P users use all their bandwidth constantly
they're going to quickly use up all their data. P2P may use
up the greatest percentage of internet bandwidth (although
I'd like to see evidence this is true) but then it is up to
ISPs to control things, whether by data caps or QOS
management to ensure this is not a problem. And whether it's
P2P or FTP or HTTP or whatever, whatever someone uses their
bandwidth for it still the same end point.

In any case, your primary gripe is latency not bandwidth, is
it not? If the backbone connections are saturated you will
get spiky latency of course. But then, the issue now is the
extra 30 ms not spiky latency. And what does how much
bandwidth gamers use have to do with anything? Telecom are
not restricting bandwidth for gamers (well they've changed
the way things are done so JSG will no longer get full speed
but thats a diff matter and still has nothing to do with
P2P)...

As a online gamer and occasional P2P user, I think your
gripe is misguided and misses the point. Telecom's plans may
be bad but suddenly blaming other people for unrelated
reasons makes no sense.

P.S. It's copyright

[Keith & Deby]

Read carefully again, I didn't knock p2p or suggest blocking or anything of
the sort...
Sure telecom frowns on p2p....it looks like they frown on gaming and other
applications that rely on latency to. Its the logic that's is the issue
As far as punkbuster is concerned, yes takes out cheats by verifying code,
and in some very new games like jo also verifies regist. cd keys in the game
eg latest nova releases.



Have a Nice Day
Keith & Deby
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@ihug.co.nz>
To: <***@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by l***@ihug.co.nz

Post by Keith & Deby
yet telecom allow p2p of which most is warez, pirated
content, copywrite infringement to take up bw way beyond
anything gaming uses and disadvantage legit gamers who pay
for their games...note most modern games have
punkbuster/registration requirements to play even
unrepentant servers now, making illegal/ duplicate copies
in multi play impossible unless on LAN multiplayer.
The logic defies me

I fail to see your point. Blocking P2P would be unfair.
Assuming that all P2P is bad and therefore should be block
is unfair to users and just plain silly. What else should
ISPs start censoring? E-mail? It's mostly spam after all.
Punkbuster although by it's nature of preventing hacked
clients may have some effect on piracy but very minimal.
It's intended to stop cheaters not pirates. Of course, many
cheaters use stolen CD keys and such because they're quickly
banned but whether or not they pirate games is unknown and
irrelevant.
The thing which prevents pirated clients is not punkbuster
but CD-key verfication. You can hack your client to bits but
this is not going to get around CD-key verfication. If
you're not verified (by the trusted external server run by
the publisher or whoever) you can't play on a normal server
simple as that (unless the company screws up). Of course it
is possible to hack a server and the clients so verification
is not necessary but punkbuster doesn't help here since
it'll just be disabled/removed.
Having said that Telecom have been very anti-P2P. I suspect
the reason they have not yet placed any limitations on JS:S
etc is since they are still not operating a proper wholesale
model, but with their new QOS who knows that's going to
happen?
I also fail to see what your gripe with P2P users is anyway.
Telecom does not offer free national and all their plans are
data capped. If P2P users use all their bandwidth constantly
they're going to quickly use up all their data. P2P may use
up the greatest percentage of internet bandwidth (although
I'd like to see evidence this is true) but then it is up to
ISPs to control things, whether by data caps or QOS
management to ensure this is not a problem. And whether it's
P2P or FTP or HTTP or whatever, whatever someone uses their
bandwidth for it still the same end point.
In any case, your primary gripe is latency not bandwidth, is
it not? If the backbone connections are saturated you will
get spiky latency of course. But then, the issue now is the
extra 30 ms not spiky latency. And what does how much
bandwidth gamers use have to do with anything? Telecom are
not restricting bandwidth for gamers (well they've changed
the way things are done so JSG will no longer get full speed
but thats a diff matter and still has nothing to do with
P2P)...
As a online gamer and occasional P2P user, I think your
gripe is misguided and misses the point. Telecom's plans may
be bad but suddenly blaming other people for unrelated
reasons makes no sense.
P.S. It's copyright
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Post by Keith & Deby
Read carefully again, I didn't knock p2p or suggest blocking or anything of
the sort...
Sure telecom frowns on p2p....it looks like they frown on gaming and other
applications that rely on latency to. Its the logic that's is the issue
As far as punkbuster is concerned, yes takes out cheats by verifying code,
and in some very new games like jo also verifies regist. cd keys in the game
eg latest nova releases.

Really? I'm looking at your post now and it looks an awful lot to me like your are knocking P2P. What exactly were you trying to say? That gamers are more important than P2P users? I would still disagree and would say if you say this you are in fact knocking P2P. I would agree that gaming traffic is more important then P2P traffic because it has generally low bandwidth but needs low and consistent latency.

Also you acknowledge Telecom frown on P2P? So am I right then what your trying to say is they don't frown on P2P enough in your opinion?

Although none of us know what Telecom is thinking, I strongly suspect they don't frown on gaming as you seem to think. They might frown on VOIP but I doubt this is the reason for the increased latency. I strongly suspect they aren't making the changes to piss of gamers or other people who want low latency. They are making the changes for other reasons. They simply do not care what effect these changes will have on gamers and other apps with low latency. I have yet to see any evidence they frown on gamers. They simply do not care that much about gamers.

Also, I still fail to get your point about punkbuster. Okay I admit I've only started playing online games in 2000 but to my knowledge, online CD-keys verification is a lot older then punkbuster and a lot more widespread (HL had it for example, as did Quake 3 and Starcraft too I believe). CD key verification has always been the corner stone of fighting piracy in online games not punkbuster (which is limited to a few games, although many games have some form of cheat prevention). In fact, looking at all the current games listed as being supported by punkbuster, I'm resonably sure all of them use cd-key verification. Punkbuster has a use, to stop cheaters. It probably has minimal effects on the use of pirated copied of the game tho since this is already taken care of by CD key verification. Are you suggesting Joint Operations (I assume this is JO) uses PB to verify CDkeys? In my quick sea
rch I didn't come across any evidence of this. JO has a CDkey verification system but I suspect
it has nothing to do with PB. If anything, maybe they are using the PB servers to verify CDkeys as well since they are already being used to verify the code status but this still has nothing to do with PB really.

[Keith & Deby]

Shake my head...
Once again I repeat


Have a Nice Day
Keith & Deby
----- Original Message -----
From: "LEE Tet Yoon" <***@ihug.co.nz>
To: <***@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

Post by LEE Tet Yoon

Post by Keith & Deby
Read carefully again, I didn't knock p2p or suggest blocking or anything of
the sort...
Sure telecom frowns on p2p....it looks like they frown on gaming and other
applications that rely on latency to. Its the logic that's is the issue
As far as punkbuster is concerned, yes takes out cheats by verifying code,
and in some very new games like jo also verifies regist. cd keys in the game
eg latest nova releases.

Really? I'm looking at your post now and it looks an awful lot to me like

your are knocking P2P. What exactly were you trying to say? That gamers are
more important than P2P users? I would still disagree and would say if you
say this you are in fact knocking P2P. I would agree that gaming traffic is
more important then P2P traffic because it has generally low bandwidth but
needs low and consistent latency.

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
Also you acknowledge Telecom frown on P2P? So am I right then what your

trying to say is they don't frown on P2P enough in your opinion?

Shake my head...
Once again I repeat, I say what I said, there is no need to try to read
between the lines, there are no gaps...I offered no personal opinon on the
subjects , and the term "frown" is from a previous poster. hence the
attempts to put words in my mouth and assume.
And re the below.
And I did not state or infer tecom frowns on gamers....their actions
ineffect have the same outcome as if they do.

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
Although none of us know what Telecom is thinking, I strongly suspect they

don't frown on gaming as you seem to think.

And I did not state or infer (no gaps between the lines again) telecom
frowns on gamers....
their actions ineffect have the same outcome as if they do.


They might frown on VOIP but I doubt this is the reason for the increased
latency. I strongly suspect they aren't making the changes to piss of gamers
or other people who want low latency. They are making the changes for other
reasons. They simply do not care what effect these changes will have on
gamers and other apps with low latency. I have yet to see any evidence they
frown on gamers. They simply do not care that much about gamers.

Totally agree

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
Also, I still fail to get your point about punkbuster. Okay I admit I've

only started playing online games in 2000 but to my knowledge, online
CD-keys verification is a lot older then punkbuster and a lot more
widespread (HL had it for example, as did Quake 3 and Starcraft too I
believe). CD key verification has always been the corner stone of fighting
piracy in online games not punkbuster (which is limited to a few games,
although many games have some form of cheat prevention). In fact, looking
at all the current games listed as being supported by punkbuster, I'm
resonably sure all of them use cd-key verification. Punkbuster has a use, to
stop cheaters. It probably has minimal effects on the use of pirated copied
of the game tho since this is already taken care of by CD key verification.
Are you suggesting Joint Operations (I assume this is JO) uses PB to verify
CDkeys? In my quick search I didn't come across any evidence of this. JO has
a CDkey verification system but I s!

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
uspect
it has nothing to do with PB. If anything, maybe they are using the PB

servers to verify CDkeys as well since they are already being used to verify
the code status but this still has nothing to do with PB really.

What ever, I dont think that this mailing list no this subject is here to go
into to debate code to prevent game piracy, or cheat blocking. I have little
or no experiance out side the nova DFLW series up , Dont play Q3, SC,
CS...to many kiddie attitudes, and never played jetstream games
servers....either dedicated served my self for many yrs or played Ogn at
iinet (resently moved from netspace)/dfncl at dart.net servers

At the end of the day, telecom, actions ineffect have the same outcome as if
they do frown on gaming...
I just dont think telcom really know who, what, their private customers do
or use their conections for, and if they do, they cant be bothered to take
it into a/c....they have basically sucked every gamer into the new BB
options, got their target #s up then cut them off at the knees. Knowing full
well that with the capital investment in connections, routers they are most
likely to stay there anyway.
I see no justification in the added latency and certainly dont see such in
overseas providers...who are in most cases lower than the current built in
40ms (5 to 20ms)

Post by LEE Tet Yoon
--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message

[Craig Humphrey]

Yup, I'm a Remote.Office user. Ironically, the Remote.Office service
itself wont be affected (since it's pretty much limited to the [slower]
back channel at the main office [we use ADSL at both ends]), it's only
when I connect to say the JS Games realm, or use our IT JetStream
account (which is a full speed account), that I'll be crippled to
512Kbit/s :) Oh and latency is already around 80ms RTT, so I can look
forward to 110ms (or most likely 140ms since presumably the 30ms applies
to both ends, since they're both ADSL), which will absolutely kill it
for Windows file shares, which were pretty poor in the first place...

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how well this works.

Raises a new point... People who have more than one ADSL account (which
has also been interesting in the past anyway), will now presumably want
to ensure that their "primary" account is has the fastest connect speed
and it's this one that Telecom sets the DSLAM for... (and then what
happens when you connect using "slower" credentials?)

Later'ish
Craig

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes

[snip snip]

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
There will probably be a few gutted Remote Office users also (you....)
They wont be able to move to another UBS provider because
that will kill
their Remote Office functionality. Telecom will thus retain all Remote
Office users. (Technically, Remote Office is a service
available via Telecom
as a UBS provider and won't be available via other UBS providers).

[snip snip]

[Wayne Kampjes]

The reduction in DSL rate will cause an increase in serialisation delay and hence latency.The change in latency would depend on the differance in the speed before and after ie if, before the change, you had a DSL down of 8M you could expect a greater change than if your speed was say 1M.

Cheers
Wayne

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-***@unixathome.org on behalf of Craig Whitmore
Sent: Thu 21/10/2004 8:12 p.m.
To: 'Lance Woollett'; ***@lists.unixathome.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: Jetstream changes

Post by ADSL-List - Sam
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Lance Woollett
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Jetstream changes
While I don't doubt that as you work for an ISP you are in a postition
to know stuff, but everyone else in this thread (and forums that have
been quoting this) seem to be riding on this one statement as the
gospel. You say a 30 ms latency increase0, however given the new plans
are not active yet, are you able to back this statement up?

Hmm.. the new plans (say I-UBS _are_ available now and I'm on it + many
others).. Some other customers on Jetsurf (as far as I can tell) have also
been moved over to the new type of rate limiting.

I personally had about a 40ms.. now its 70ms after I changed over and
similar can be seen for the large amount of other customers that have been
moved over.

Thanks
Craig




--
This message is part of the NZ ADSL mailing list.
see http://unixathome.org/adsl/ for archives, FAQ,
and various documents.
To unsubscribe: send mail to ***@lists.unixathome.org
with "unsubscribe adsl" in the body of the message





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This communication, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read
it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not
copy or use any part of this communication or disclose
anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this
communication does not designate an information system for
the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002."

[Brian Gibbons]

Post by Wayne Kampjes
The reduction in DSL rate will cause an increase in serialisation delay

and hence latency.

Agreed, but irrelevant.

Most people "measure" latency with a ping test, this would reveal the
"minimum" latency of a route/return route, larger packets would have a
higher latency due to serialisation but that is not the issue.

Gamers want to be Low Ping Bastards, short packets with low round trip times
(ditto Cirix, PC Anywhere etc).

Serialisation of a 50 byte packet is about two milliseconds on a 256k line
(500 bits / 250,000 bps = 2ms).

The report is a RTT increase from 40ms to 70ms being 35ms latency.
Serialisation accounts for 2ms, interleave accounts for 15-20ms, where has
the remaining 13ms latency come from?

Cheers

BG

[Mark Cranness]

Post by David Hawke
The churn relates to bandwidth supplier, not ISP. Hence, if I go
to the higher speed, and then want to move to my current ISP's
higher speed UBS in March, then I will have to pay the churn fee
to Telecom.
This seems to be little known - the general understanding is
that the churn fee applies if you change ISP. I have been
advised that it is *NOT* about the ISP - rather that it is the
bandwidth provider

I also think the general understanding is not correct.
I suspect that the churn fee is a charge that telecom make and keep, and NOT
a transfer between ISP A and ISP B.
I suspect that the churn fee is charged, EVEN IF you are already a customer
of the ISP.

Imagine: In November, a user transfers from Paradise JetStart to Orcon UBS,
and Telecom, out of the goodness of their heart, transfer the line over to
USB, then charge Orcon $101 and then hand it over to Paradise and make or
keep NO charge for their efforts?...
Nope, I don't think so.

http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/sept_04_ubs_user_guide.pdf
<<The churn fee is aligned to the cost of standard connection
charge (currently $88 + GST) plus reassignment fee...
This fee will apply for *all* provisions of UBS pertaining to lines where
an ADSL connection has been operational within the last 30 days.>>
(September 2004, *emphasis added*.
NO mention of an exemption for existing customers of the ISP.
NO mention of crediting the "loosing" ISP in this document, or offsetting
receipts for customers lost against payments for customer gained.)

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/1AA290BD04DFDDB3CC256EE5001023CB
<<"lowering [the churn fee] is OK, but we think it either shouldn't be there
at all, or should be consistent across all ISPs. At the moment, there is
still the ability for Xtra to aggressively acquire customers from other
ISPs, while the *reverse is not possible* without incurring significant
cost.">>
<<The churn fee charged from ISPs when customers switch from *existing*
services to *new* ones has been reduced by thirty per cent.>>
(August 2004, Churn fee only one way)

http://www.telecom-media.co.nz/releases_detail.asp?id=3067
<<Other key changes include a 30 percent reduction in the cost of
transferring *existing* customers to *new services* (churn fee) from $150
per customer to $101.75 and $105.50 >>
(*emphasis added* July 2004, JetSream -> UBS, the charge only goes one way.)

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/A914817C5F4F0CFBCC256EAF0008C90E
<<If the customer switches from Telecom-provided DSL to UBS, a $150 "churn
fee" will be levied from the provider>>
(June 2004)

Mark

[LEE Tet Yoon]

Post by Mark Cranness

Post by David Hawke
The churn relates to bandwidth supplier, not ISP. Hence, if I go
to the higher speed, and then want to move to my current ISP's
higher speed UBS in March, then I will have to pay the churn fee
to Telecom.
This seems to be little known - the general understanding is
that the churn fee applies if you change ISP. I have been
advised that it is *NOT* about the ISP - rather that it is the
bandwidth provider

I also think the general understanding is not correct.
I suspect that the churn fee is a charge that telecom make and keep, and NOT
a transfer between ISP A and ISP B.
I suspect that the churn fee is charged, EVEN IF you are already a customer
of the ISP.
Imagine: In November, a user transfers from Paradise JetStart to Orcon UBS,
and Telecom, out of the goodness of their heart, transfer the line over to
USB, then charge Orcon $101 and then hand it over to Paradise and make or
keep NO charge for their efforts?...
Nope, I don't think so.
http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/sept_04_ubs_user_guide.pdf
<<The churn fee is aligned to the cost of standard connection
charge (currently $88 + GST) plus reassignment fee...
This fee will apply for *all* provisions of UBS pertaining to lines where
an ADSL connection has been operational within the last 30 days.>>
(September 2004, *emphasis added*.
NO mention of an exemption for existing customers of the ISP.
NO mention of crediting the "loosing" ISP in this document, or offsetting
receipts for customers lost against payments for customer gained.)

I don't have any links but I did get the distinct impression from various news reports and previous posts that the money does go between ISPs. However, this does conflict with suggestions by some that's partially a cost recovery exercise by Telecom.

Post by Mark Cranness
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/1AA290BD04DFDDB3CC256EE5001023CB
<<"lowering [the churn fee] is OK, but we think it either shouldn't be there
at all, or should be consistent across all ISPs. At the moment, there is
still the ability for Xtra to aggressively acquire customers from other
ISPs, while the *reverse is not possible* without incurring significant
cost.">>
<<The churn fee charged from ISPs when customers switch from *existing*
services to *new* ones has been reduced by thirty per cent.>>
(August 2004, Churn fee only one way)

This seems inconsistent with other news reports and previous info on this board which states that Xtra will be charged. Although I have pointed out before, this is still an advantage to Xtra since it's far more likely IMHO that someone is going to want to change from them then to them, esp in the future.

Post by Mark Cranness
http://www.telecom-media.co.nz/releases_detail.asp?id=3067
<<Other key changes include a 30 percent reduction in the cost of
transferring *existing* customers to *new services* (churn fee) from $150
per customer to $101.75 and $105.50 >>
(*emphasis added* July 2004, JetSream -> UBS, the charge only goes one way.)
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/A914817C5F4F0CFBCC256EAF0008C90E
<<If the customer switches from Telecom-provided DSL to UBS, a $150 "churn
fee" will be levied from the provider>>
(June 2004)

I have never been sure and have never really read enough to confirm this one way or the other. There have been some suggestions it will be between UBS providers (Telecom retail as a UBS provider) in which case if you stick with Surf or whatever it's called and later change to UBS, the ISP will have to pay. However, there have also been suggestions it's between any ISPs. Then there is the question of what about existing customers? If it's the ISP model then one would assume customers are 'churn tied' to their ISP as of 1st October. If it's the UBS provider model then what happens?