128Kb/s Upstream Throttles 2Mb/s downstream

[Philip D'Ath]

Ran into an interesting problem the other day.

Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
forced to move to UBS like everyone else, but liked the speed, so
decided to go for a 2Mb/s plan.

They gave me a call the other day complaining their WWW browsing was
very poor. Assumed it was related to the ISP, but decided to
investigate further.


Turns out the problem occurs when a small number of users all decide to
send an email at the same time (they don't have an internal mail server,
so use their ISP's SMTP server). This chokes up the 128Kb/s upstream,
and was causing the TCP ACKs to be substantially delayed, causing the
observed slow down in WWW browsing.

Did a further test. I've I get several of their users to all send an
email while doing a download I found the download throughput dropped to
a poultry 64Kb/s. As soon as the emails finish speed takes off again.


There's been some talk about how the 128Kb/s upstream limits the maximum
performance. However, the problem is actually much more severe,
especially when many users sit behind such a link. Very quickly you
reach the point where even a small business can't possibly use the 2Mb/s
which they are paying for.

--
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]

Philip D'Ath wrote:
[snippity goodness]
> Turns out the problem occurs when a small number of users all decide to
> send an email at the same time (they don't have an internal mail server,
> so use their ISP's SMTP server). This chokes up the 128Kb/s upstream,
> and was causing the TCP ACKs to be substantially delayed, causing the
> observed slow down in WWW browsing.
>
> Did a further test. I've I get several of their users to all send an
> email while doing a download I found the download throughput dropped to
> a poultry 64Kb/s. As soon as the emails finish speed takes off again.
>
>
> There's been some talk about how the 128Kb/s upstream limits the maximum
> performance. However, the problem is actually much more severe,
> especially when many users sit behind such a link. Very quickly you
> reach the point where even a small business can't possibly use the 2Mb/s
> which they are paying for.
>

This is a known issue, infact, I think someone pointed out in another
forum that 4meg is the theoretical maximum you can possibly get if you
have one TCP stream running with 128k up, the 128k up will saturate with
the ACK's.

The real answer to solve all this is to simply use UDP for all your
download needs, this way no ACK's are generated and you can quite
happily saturate your 2 (or more) Mbps links.

I'm just waiting with baited breath for Telecom to release their new
25Mbps/128k plans !!

--
Steve.
--
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

[Juha Saarinen]

Steve Phillips wrote:
> The real answer to solve all this is to simply use UDP for all your
> download needs, this way no ACK's are generated and you can quite
> happily saturate your 2 (or more) Mbps links.

I don't know if that'd work... can you post some REAL FACTS based on
your extensive testing?

> I'm just waiting with baited breath for Telecom to release their new
> 25Mbps/128k plans !!

Yes.

--
Juha
Oh! Oh! Un affrontement intercommunitaire!
--
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

[Russell Fulton]

you can mitigate some of this by prioritising ACKs on the up link.
There has been quite a bit of discussion about doing this with OBSD's pf
firewall on the pf mailing list.

Russell

Philip D'Ath wrote:
> Ran into an interesting problem the other day.
>
> Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
> forced to move to UBS like everyone else, but liked the speed, so
> decided to go for a 2Mb/s plan.
>
> They gave me a call the other day complaining their WWW browsing was
> very poor. Assumed it was related to the ISP, but decided to
> investigate further.
>
>
> Turns out the problem occurs when a small number of users all decide to
> send an email at the same time (they don't have an internal mail server,
> so use their ISP's SMTP server). This chokes up the 128Kb/s upstream,
> and was causing the TCP ACKs to be substantially delayed, causing the
> observed slow down in WWW browsing.
>
> Did a further test. I've I get several of their users to all send an
> email while doing a download I found the download throughput dropped to
> a poultry 64Kb/s. As soon as the emails finish speed takes off again.
>
>
> There's been some talk about how the 128Kb/s upstream limits the maximum
> performance. However, the problem is actually much more severe,
> especially when many users sit behind such a link. Very quickly you
> reach the point where even a small business can't possibly use the 2Mb/s
> which they are paying for.
>
--
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

[Philip D'Ath]

Thinking about it further; its probably best to prioritise packets by
size (give small packets higher priority).

That way small but important packets like DNS queries and TCP
handshaking would not be obstructed by large upstream traffic like SMTP.


-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Fulton [mailto:***@auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2005 1:03 p.m.
To: Philip D'Ath
Cc: ADSL List
Subject: Re: 128Kb/s Upstream Throttles 2Mb/s downstream

you can mitigate some of this by prioritising ACKs on the up link.
There has been quite a bit of discussion about doing this with OBSD's pf
firewall on the pf mailing list.

Russell

Philip D'Ath wrote:
> Ran into an interesting problem the other day.
>
> Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
> forced to move to UBS like everyone else, but liked the speed, so
> decided to go for a 2Mb/s plan.
>
> They gave me a call the other day complaining their WWW browsing was
> very poor. Assumed it was related to the ISP, but decided to
> investigate further.
>
>
> Turns out the problem occurs when a small number of users all decide
> to send an email at the same time (they don't have an internal mail
> server, so use their ISP's SMTP server). This chokes up the 128Kb/s
> upstream, and was causing the TCP ACKs to be substantially delayed,
> causing the observed slow down in WWW browsing.
>
> Did a further test. I've I get several of their users to all send an
> email while doing a download I found the download throughput dropped
> to a poultry 64Kb/s. As soon as the emails finish speed takes off
again.
>
>
> There's been some talk about how the 128Kb/s upstream limits the
> maximum performance. However, the problem is actually much more
> severe, especially when many users sit behind such a link. Very
> quickly you reach the point where even a small business can't possibly

> use the 2Mb/s which they are paying for.
>

--
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

[Mark Foster]

> Thinking about it further; its probably best to prioritise packets by
> size (give small packets higher priority).
>
> That way small but important packets like DNS queries and TCP
> handshaking would not be obstructed by large upstream traffic like SMTP.
>

But is it not tragic that these sorts of approaches are needed in the
first place?

Whats an acceptable up:down bandwidth ratio?

4:1?

8:1?


I assume that the historical reasons not to give people Synchronous
up/down rates are something like 'discouraging people from running
servers' but surely 128k/2meg is slightly on the extreme?

... and are the people with the ability to do anything about the problem
actually reading this? Probably not. But to expect end users to
institute QoS and the like is rediculous - I dont see them documenting
THIS on their help-pages...


--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

Mark Foster wrote:
>
> But is it not tragic that these sorts of approaches are needed in the
> first place?

The effects of uncontrolled upstream traffic on a network can be quite
shocking. NZ/TNZ is certainly not unique in having asymmetric service.

> I assume that the historical reasons not to give people Synchronous
> up/down rates are something like 'discouraging people from running
> servers' but surely 128k/2meg is slightly on the extreme?

It's more along the lines of "discouraging people using a
low-cost/low-margin/low-profit service for commercial uses". Sure.. it
works, but not very well.

There are a lot of other reasons, too. Most of which have been hashed
over several times on this list.

> ... and are the people with the ability to do anything about the problem
> actually reading this? Probably not. But to expect end users to
> institute QoS and the like is rediculous - I dont see them documenting
> THIS on their help-pages...

You'd be surprised.

PID: Was there a reason that the customer did not want to move to Xtra
for full rate Jetstream?

aj
--
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

[Brian Gibbons]

>From: "Mark Foster" <***@blakjak.net>
>
> Whats an acceptable up:down bandwidth ratio?
>
> 4:1?
>
> 8:1?

Information flow is generally from a business to a home user, i.e.
businesses "send" more information than (non P2P) home users.

So while 10:1 down/up may be OK for home users, many businesses need 2:1
with minimum "up" speed at least as fast as a home users "down" speed (e.g.
remote email access to Exchange Server at work).

A 256k or 512k upload speed would have made UBS "usable" for businesses, but
Telecom don't seem to care about the needs of "other" NZ businesses.

Cheers

BG



--
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

[Richard Naylor]

At 04:05 PM 10/20/2005 +1300, Brian Gibbons wrote:

not picking on you Brian, just decided its time to comment

> >From: "Mark Foster" <***@blakjak.net>
> >
> > Whats an acceptable up:down bandwidth ratio?
> >
> > 4:1?
> > 8:1?

1:1 - dsl is only asymmetric because the DMT seems to work better according
to what I remember from Alcatel years ago. Do you remember those 1200/75bps
modems from the 80's ? Also invented by the telcos so they could get into
information services.... called Prestel or something like that. The telcos
would dearly love to own or control the Internet. The somewhat random
method of developing things on the Internet is a complete horror to them.

>Information flow is generally from a business to a home user, i.e.
>businesses "send" more information than (non P2P) home users.

49% of people in WGTN work outside the CBD, many from home. I have to shift
video files from home to my server. They're processed at night. Sometimes I
use my dsl connex. generally due to size, I use a firewire disk and the
long haul version of sneeker net (remember that ?) - its called a car.

I personally used full speed jetstream until now. I terminated with
Paradise today. I am very grumpy. nz wireless are in the area now and my
sons use CafeNet (also in the area). I don't think I'll use dsl again and
am now trying to work out an easy way to get free calling to my mother in
law so I can disconnect the phone. (I have several iTalk phones)

>So while 10:1 down/up may be OK for home users, many businesses need 2:1
>with minimum "up" speed at least as fast as a home users "down" speed (e.g.
>remote email access to Exchange Server at work).
>
>A 256k or 512k upload speed would have made UBS "usable" for businesses, but
>Telecom don't seem to care about the needs of "other" NZ businesses.

Their mission in life is to make money for shareholders. Slowing down
broadband delays capex spends which shareholders hate. The fact that it
stuffs up other businesses is no concern of theirs. Lets be honest about it.

Mr Grumpy

--
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

[Simon Byrnand]

At 12:40 20/10/2005, Philip D'Ath wrote:

>Ran into an interesting problem the other day.
>
>Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
>forced to move to UBS like everyone else, but liked the speed, so
>decided to go for a 2Mb/s plan.
>
>They gave me a call the other day complaining their WWW browsing was
>very poor. Assumed it was related to the ISP, but decided to
>investigate further.
>
>
>Turns out the problem occurs when a small number of users all decide to
>send an email at the same time (they don't have an internal mail server,
>so use their ISP's SMTP server). This chokes up the 128Kb/s upstream,
>and was causing the TCP ACKs to be substantially delayed, causing the
>observed slow down in WWW browsing.
>
>Did a further test. I've I get several of their users to all send an
>email while doing a download I found the download throughput dropped to
>a poultry 64Kb/s. As soon as the emails finish speed takes off again.
>
>
>There's been some talk about how the 128Kb/s upstream limits the maximum
>performance. However, the problem is actually much more severe,
>especially when many users sit behind such a link. Very quickly you
>reach the point where even a small business can't possibly use the 2Mb/s
>which they are paying for.

This is a good example of the not-so-obvious limitations of 128Kbit upstream.

Assuming that the 128Kbit limit is here to stay for the forseeable
future the only choice is to do QoS on on the upstream traffic and
give prioritization to acks, and for good measure do something like
sfq as well to avoid any one stream from hogging the available bandwidth.

As a workaround you could insert a device that can do QoS and traffic
shapping between the ADSL router and the lan, and there are some that
can even do this in bridging mode such as the Cyberguard's which
makes it transperant to the existing network setup.

Regards,
Simon

--
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

[Brian Gibbons]

>From: "Simon Byrnand" <***@igrin.co.nz>
> This is a good example of the not-so-obvious limitations of 128Kbit
upstream.
>
> Assuming that the 128Kbit limit is here to stay for the forseeable
> future the only choice is to do QoS on on the upstream traffic and
> give prioritization to acks, and for good measure do something like
> sfq as well to avoid any one stream from hogging the available bandwidth.

I don't think giving outgoing ACKs priority will help much.

A web browser usually opens 4 sockets to a web server and sends multiple
HTTP requests to download all the components of a web page. Often these
components are from other web sites so more three way hand shakes and HTTP
requests are required to download the page.

An HTTP request will usually be 100 .. 200 bytes, the response may be a
small component of the web page (e.g. a 200 to 500 byte GIF image). So you
have sent 200 bytes to get 200 bytes back. Under this scenario the maximum
download speed for some web pages may be not much more than your upload
speed.

If an outgoing email starts competing with the outgoing HTTP requests
everything will grind to a halt. Rather than giving ACKs priority I would
give outgoing HTTP requests the priority.

Amazing isn't it, we are now confronted with an Internet topology in NZ that
is barely usable. The "headline" speeds are bullshit, in reality a 2mbit UBS
connect probably performs at the same speed as a 256k UBS connection under
"average business" conditions due to the fact that the bottleneck is in the
128k upload path. Combine this with a minumum Round Trip Time increase from
40ms (Jetstream) to 80ms (UBS) and you can see why business users are
complaining.

Cheers

BG


--
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

[Simon Byrnand]

At 16:56 20/10/2005, Brian Gibbons wrote:


> >From: "Simon Byrnand" <***@igrin.co.nz>
> > This is a good example of the not-so-obvious limitations of 128Kbit
>upstream.
> >
> > Assuming that the 128Kbit limit is here to stay for the forseeable
> > future the only choice is to do QoS on on the upstream traffic and
> > give prioritization to acks, and for good measure do something like
> > sfq as well to avoid any one stream from hogging the available bandwidth.
>
>I don't think giving outgoing ACKs priority will help much.

It helps one of the originally mentioned problems - poor download
speeds on long term connections.

>A web browser usually opens 4 sockets to a web server and sends multiple
>HTTP requests to download all the components of a web page. Often these
>components are from other web sites so more three way hand shakes and HTTP
>requests are required to download the page.
>
>An HTTP request will usually be 100 .. 200 bytes, the response may be a
>small component of the web page (e.g. a 200 to 500 byte GIF image). So you
>have sent 200 bytes to get 200 bytes back. Under this scenario the maximum
>download speed for some web pages may be not much more than your upload
>speed.
>
>If an outgoing email starts competing with the outgoing HTTP requests
>everything will grind to a halt. Rather than giving ACKs priority I would
>give outgoing HTTP requests the priority.

I don't think that its necessary to give any particular traffic
prioritization, (apart from acks) if you use some kind of round robin
scheduler like sfq, which gives "fair" access to each seperate
stream. In that case each outgoing stream gets a fair chance. We use
it for wireless links and it works amazingly well in practice - even
with 256Kbit you can do a file transfer in either direction and still
have fairly snappy interactive browsing performance, and good
performance for transfers in the opposite direction as well, and
thats not even doing ack prioritization.

A combination of prioritization of acks (to help prevent heavy
traffic use in one direction slow down the other direction) and round
robin scheduling such as linux's sfq can make a world of difference
to how usable a certain sized chunk of bandwidth is, especially when
shared across many client computers/applications....

>Amazing isn't it, we are now confronted with an Internet topology in NZ that
>is barely usable. The "headline" speeds are bullshit, in reality a 2mbit UBS
>connect probably performs at the same speed as a 256k UBS connection under
>"average business" conditions due to the fact that the bottleneck is in the
>128k upload path. Combine this with a minumum Round Trip Time increase from
>40ms (Jetstream) to 80ms (UBS) and you can see why business users are
>complaining.

Yep, there have definately been some retrograde steps... although its
a year or two since the latency was 40ms, its been 60ms for some time
now on the old Jetstream plans...

Regards,
Simon

--
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

[Paul Norton]

ok, at the risk of being flamed to hell ;-)

<snip>
Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
forced to move to UBS like everyone else,
<snip>

The full speed plans are still available via Telecom/Xtra -
http://www.telecom.co.nz/chm/0,5123,204848-203868,00.html

They are also still available as a wholesale product hence other
providers/ISPs can still offer the full speed plans

"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."


--
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

[Juha Saarinen]

Paul Norton wrote:
> ok, at the risk of being flamed to hell ;-)

Naaaahhh...

> The full speed plans are still available via Telecom/Xtra -
> http://www.telecom.co.nz/chm/0,5123,204848-203868,00.html

Here's the official line:

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/FC31E734EFDD0739CC2570290016D8F1

> They are also still available as a wholesale product hence other
> providers/ISPs can still offer the full speed plans

It's not quite so easy though... they were available under the Jetstream
Partnering Programme, but that's going now. They are not available under
CUBS, but only under the main WSA, right? Means ISPs have to sell phone
lines, toll calls, etc, at very low margins just to supply full-rate DSL.

--
Juha
Oh! Oh! Un affrontement intercommunitaire!
--
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

[Bruce Barton]

The information on the page list download speed but what is the upload
speed? Still 126kbs

Bruce Barton

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-***@unixathome.org [mailto:owner-***@unixathome.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Norton
Sent: 20 October 2005 1:57 p.m.
To: ADSL List
Subject: RE: 128Kb/s Upstream Throttles 2Mb/s downstream

ok, at the risk of being flamed to hell ;-)

<snip>
Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were forced
to move to UBS like everyone else, <snip>

The full speed plans are still available via Telecom/Xtra -
http://www.telecom.co.nz/chm/0,5123,204848-203868,00.html

They are also still available as a wholesale product hence other
providers/ISPs can still offer the full speed plans

"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."


--
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 email has been virus checked with AVG 7.0

--
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

[Paul Norton]

<It's not quite so easy though... they were available under the
Jetstream
Partnering Programme, but that's going now. They are not available under

CUBS, but only under the main WSA, right? Means ISPs have to sell phone
lines, toll calls, etc, at very low margins just to supply full-rate
DSL.>

Hmm, possibly. To be honest I don't know the ins and outs of the various
agreements.

Just trying to point out that Philip's comment that all customer's are
being forced on to UBS is not quite correct...

Cheers

Paul

"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."


--
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

[Nick Rout]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:40:54 +1300
Philip D'Ath wrote:

> Did a further test. I've I get several of their users to all send an
> email while doing a download I found the download throughput dropped to
> a poultry 64Kb/s.


Eventually the chickens will come home to roost!

--
Nick Rout <***@rout.co.nz>

--
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

[Peter Smith]

Philip D'Ath wrote:

>Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
>forced to move to UBS like everyone else, but liked the speed,
>

You don't have to give up the speed. I didn't. After a few conversations
with Bruce Buddicon at Telecom, I've found it is possible to keep a full
rate conenction. It's just a matter of find an ISP who is prepared to
offer it. In the end Telecom recommend Earthlight, and everything is
working great (and as fast as ever--allowing for the rain)



--
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

[Peter Smith]

I mention the rain, because when the ground gets wet here the downstream
speed drops to about 5MHz (but the upstream stays pretty solid near 600k).

(Sorry for the earlier typos)

Peter Smith wrote:

> Philip D'Ath wrote:
>
>> Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
>> forced to move to UBS like everyone else, but liked the speed,
>
>
> You don't have to give up the speed. I didn't. After a few
> conversations with Bruce Buddicon at Telecom, I've found it is
> possible to keep a full rate conenction. It's just a matter of find an
> ISP who is prepared to offer it. In the end Telecom recommend
> Earthlight, and everything is working great (and as fast as
> ever--allowing for the rain)
>
>

--
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

[Paul Norton]

With the full speed plans the speed is not rate limited either up or
down hence upstream and downstream speed will be dictated by factors
like Ohms resistance, dB loss etc. In other words you'll get whatever
speed the ADSL modem and DSLAM etc can sync at. As I recall the max
download is about 7.6Mb and upload about 800Kb.

Cheers

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Barton [mailto:***@barton.net.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2005 20:09
To: Paul Norton; 'ADSL List'
Subject: RE: 128Kb/s Upstream Throttles 2Mb/s downstream

The information on the page list download speed but what is the upload
speed? Still 126kbs

Bruce Barton

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-***@unixathome.org [mailto:owner-***@unixathome.org] On
Behalf
Of Paul Norton
Sent: 20 October 2005 1:57 p.m.
To: ADSL List
Subject: RE: 128Kb/s Upstream Throttles 2Mb/s downstream

ok, at the risk of being flamed to hell ;-)

<snip>
Had a business customer that was on full speed JetStream. They were
forced
to move to UBS like everyone else, <snip>

The full speed plans are still available via Telecom/Xtra -
http://www.telecom.co.nz/chm/0,5123,204848-203868,00.html

They are also still available as a wholesale product hence other
providers/ISPs can still offer the full speed plans

"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."


--
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 email has been virus checked with AVG 7.0




--
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 Withers]

On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 12:40 +1300, Philip D'Ath wrote:

> There's been some talk about how the 128Kb/s upstream limits the
> maximum
> performance. However, the problem is actually much more severe,
> especially when many users sit behind such a link. Very quickly you
> reach the point where even a small business can't possibly use the
> 2Mb/s
> which they are paying for.

I've seen thesame thing.

My daughter "discovered" Limewire....and left the thing running 24/7.

She had downloaded some very popular files (I've had a TALK with
her)....and they were being uploaded all the time.

This choked the upward link......slowing everything down.

Everything still worked - but the delay in response (becasue you
couldn't ask) was very noticeable.

I used to have 192 on Jetsream Plus and had only rarely noticed
contention on the upward link.

We have 5 PCs here sharing the one connection.

--
Steve Withers <***@mmp.org.nz>

--
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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

You think you have problems.

Try running any sort of server that gets used even sparsely by one or
two people. Not only does the upstream get saturated by having a single
incomming ssh connection, and 1 or two open internal browser session.
But add a webserver to the mix, and you've got a huge slowdown. Even
with carefully crafted QOS stuff on the server the 128kbit upstream
kills anything that is "real" internet.

Also I have had my 192kps connection throttled by Orcon for around 4
months to 160kps. Telecoms seems Innocent in this case, and the throttle
is being impossed by the ISP. Of course I only discovered this myself,
but had it confirmed by the ISP a couple of weeks ago.

This is dispite having not moved to a UBS plan... seems it was too much
hassle for Orcon to deal with the Partnering connections separately and
just upstream rate limited all DSL connections, when it was announced
the Jetstream partnering would be axed in the near future. (back in June
I believe)

Fun Eh


DSL in NZ ... Just say NO! I think should be a good marketing slogan.







--
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

[Craig Whitmore]

>
> Also I have had my 192kps connection throttled by Orcon for around 4
> months to 160kps. Telecoms seems Innocent in this case, and the throttle
> is being impossed by the ISP. Of course I only discovered this myself,
> but had it confirmed by the ISP a couple of weeks ago.
>

As far as I know customers on the 192k upstream where going to stay on this
speed and only new plans (from a certain date where going to be on 128k)
on Jetstream. The ISP has no control on the throttling of the speed. (this
is something telecom does - it does not even touch the ISP's network). Maybe
during some change around on Telecom's end your 192K upload was changed to
128K.

> This is dispite having not moved to a UBS plan... seems it was too much
> hassle for Orcon to deal with the Partnering connections separately and
> just upstream rate limited all DSL connections, when it was announced
> the Jetstream partnering would be axed in the near future. (back in June
> I believe)

If you moved from 192k->128k then this would of been done via Telecom, not
Orcon (as Jetstream ISP's have NO control of this, only Telecom)

Thanks
Craig
Talking for myself.


--
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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 16:40 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:

> As far as I know customers on the 192k upstream where going to stay on this
> speed and only new plans (from a certain date where going to be on 128k)
> on Jetstream. The ISP has no control on the throttling of the speed. (this
> is something telecom does - it does not even touch the ISP's network). Maybe
> during some change around on Telecom's end your 192K upload was changed to
> 128K.



You are correct in thinking that customers on those plans were to stay
with the slightly higher upstream.

You are incorrect in the assumption however that the ISP has no control
over the upstream rate. The ISP's are definitely the ones rate limiting
the upstream in my case, and it does "TOUCH" the isp's network as it
uses the ISP's routes...

Telecom are not, and HAVE not throttled the connection, both the modem
and the dslam are reporting the 320kps rate. I have talked to an Orcon
rep two weeks ago that confirmed that it was orcon that switched all
customers over and rate limited them months ago... to 160kps
upstream.... I could be wrong in trusting the conversations I've had
with Telecom and Orcon. But this seems the only logical explanation. The
isp's are fiddling and NOT telecom.

BTW I let telecom know about the upstream rate limiting last week, and
they did some tests on my line etc.

Also ORCON have been switching off Jetstream partnering program
connections purposely for the last 4 months to force the customers to
ring and to change to UBS. This is NOT good practice, I have also had
this confirmed with reps at Orcon in the last week. As some Muppet did
it to my Connection after I rang about a seperate issue the night
before. I was without internet for half a day and had to wait for the
orcon helpdesk to come in in the morning. I spent 12-2am on the phone
with jetstream trying to establish with the nightshift if it was their
issue or not... eventually we gave up thinking it was a router dieing...
But it ending up being my first assumption that ORCON had turned the
account off....



Kind regards


Joel W

--
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

[Geoff]

> Also ORCON have been switching off Jetstream partnering program
> connections purposely for the last 4 months to force the customers to
> ring and to change to UBS. This is NOT good practice, I have also had
> this confirmed with reps at Orcon in the last week. As some Muppet did
> it to my Connection after I rang about a seperate issue the night
> before. I was without internet for half a day and had to wait for the
> orcon helpdesk to come in in the morning. I spent 12-2am on the phone
> with jetstream trying to establish with the nightshift if it was their
> issue or not... eventually we gave up thinking it was a router dieing...
> But it ending up being my first assumption that ORCON had turned the
> account off....

That would be because Telecom are forcing the ISPs to do it.

There will be no JPP anymore. ALL ADSL users h ave to be either Xtra (non
UBS) or UBS.

Geoff.

--
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

[Thomas Salmen]

>
> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 16:40 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:
>
> > As far as I know customers on the 192k upstream where going to stay on
> this
> > speed and only new plans (from a certain date where going to be on 128k)
> > on Jetstream. The ISP has no control on the throttling of the speed.
> (this
> > is something telecom does - it does not even touch the ISP's network).
> Maybe
> > during some change around on Telecom's end your 192K upload was changed
> to
> > 128K.
>
>
>
> You are correct in thinking that customers on those plans were to stay
> with the slightly higher upstream.
>
> You are incorrect in the assumption however that the ISP has no control
> over the upstream rate. The ISP's are definitely the ones rate limiting
> the upstream in my case, and it does "TOUCH" the isp's network as it
> uses the ISP's routes...

Sorry, but Craig is right. Because you are on a FastIP Direct line, your
traffic never crosses the Orcon network. Orcon simply provides
authentication services; there is no way Orcon can ratelimit or throttle
your connection, upstream or down.


>
> Telecom are not, and HAVE not throttled the connection, both the modem
> and the dslam are reporting the 320kps rate. I have talked to an Orcon
> rep two weeks ago that confirmed that it was orcon that switched all
> customers over and rate limited them months ago... to 160kps
> upstream.... I could be wrong in trusting the conversations I've had
> with Telecom and Orcon. But this seems the only logical explanation. The
> isp's are fiddling and NOT telecom.

The speed as reported by your modem is simply the size of the PVC connecting
back to the local DSLAM. DSL lines are throttled in two places: first, by
the size of this PVC, and second by the profile applied to your line on the
aggregating B-RAS. It's entirely possible for your DSL line speed to be set
to 320 while a 128k traffic shaper is applied to the upstream on your PPPoA
session.


>
> BTW I let telecom know about the upstream rate limiting last week, and
> they did some tests on my line etc.

In my experience, front-line Telecom staff "running some tests" does not
extend to investigating the qos profiles applied to a line.


> Also ORCON have been switching off Jetstream partnering program
> connections purposely for the last 4 months to force the customers to
> ring and to change to UBS. This is NOT good practice, I have also had
> this confirmed with reps at Orcon in the last week. As some Muppet did
> it to my Connection after I rang about a seperate issue the night
> before. I was without internet for half a day and had to wait for the
> orcon helpdesk to come in in the morning. I spent 12-2am on the phone
> with jetstream trying to establish with the nightshift if it was their
> issue or not... eventually we gave up thinking it was a router dieing...
> But it ending up being my first assumption that ORCON had turned the
> account off....
>

Accounts were disabled in an effort to get people into action to shift to an
alternative that is not going to stop working in two weeks time. There has
been a concerted effort to make people aware of the impending withdrawal of
the JPP service, but there are still a small number of users who have made
no action to change. This way you get a temporarily reversible taste of
what's coming, and some time to consider your options and make a decision.
If you don't change services (whether to UBS, WSB, or some other
alternative), then your line will stop working, soon, permanently. That's a
Telecom decision, and sadly no amount of complaining will make any
difference.


Cheers,
Thomas

>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Joel W
>
> --
> 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 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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

> Sorry, but Craig is right. Because you are on a FastIP Direct line, your
> traffic never crosses the Orcon network. Orcon simply provides
> authentication services; there is no way Orcon can ratelimit or throttle
> your connection, upstream or down.

Then why was I told by an Orcon Tech (not a helpdesker) that all the jpp
192kps plans were throtled and switched a few months ago, and so Why am
I getting 160kps only?


> The speed as reported by your modem is simply the size of the PVC connecting
> back to the local DSLAM. DSL lines are throttled in two places: first, by
> the size of this PVC, and second by the profile applied to your line on the
> aggregating B-RAS. It's entirely possible for your DSL line speed to be set
> to 320 while a 128k traffic shaper is applied to the upstream on your PPPoA
> session.
I am aware of that, but it eliminates a line issue. Who does the pppoa auth... the ISP...
So they get a chance here to rate limit, correct?

>
> >
> > BTW I let telecom know about the upstream rate limiting last week, and
> > they did some tests on my line etc.
>
> In my experience, front-line Telecom staff "running some tests" does not
> extend to investigating the qos profiles applied to a line.
Yup sure I am doubly skeptical. But Orcon have fed me more BS than Telecom lately.

> > Also ORCON have been switching off Jetstream partnering program
> > connections purposely for the last 4 months to force the customers to
> > ring and to change to UBS. This is NOT good practice, I have also had
> > this confirmed with reps at Orcon in the last week. As some Muppet did
> > it to my Connection after I rang about a seperate issue the night
> > before. I was without internet for half a day and had to wait for the
> > orcon helpdesk to come in in the morning. I spent 12-2am on the phone
> > with jetstream trying to establish with the nightshift if it was their
> > issue or not... eventually we gave up thinking it was a router dieing...
> > But it ending up being my first assumption that ORCON had turned the
> > account off....
> >
>
> Accounts were disabled in an effort to get people into action to shift to an
> alternative that is not going to stop working in two weeks time. There has
> been a concerted effort to make people aware of the impending withdrawal of
> the JPP service, but there are still a small number of users who have made
> no action to change. This way you get a temporarily reversible taste of
> what's coming, and some time to consider your options and make a decision.
> If you don't change services (whether to UBS, WSB, or some other
> alternative), then your line will stop working, soon, permanently. That's a
> Telecom decision, and sadly no amount of complaining will make any
> difference.

I have explained my situation to both telecom and orcon, so turning off
my connection is complete BS! I am sorry it's just not acceptable
practice. I don't pay to have my connection turned off so I can ring my
ISP. They can RING me like any normal business would do, especially
having it happen when it's CLEAR from my notes that I don't want to
switch and am well aware of the options.

Also, I have arranged for Telecom to extend the grace period, it's all
up to Orcon now to continue to offer Auth, I have also explained this to
orcon, and they have (well the last person I spoke too) said that if
telecom don't turn off the connection (as they have assured me they
wont) then they will continue to auth...

You see I am moving end of next month. If I am forced to move to UBS for
a month I then get extra costs involved in paying a disconect fee, orcon
also ends up paying for the churn fee, there has to be a provisioning
request, (taking from 14 days to 3 weeks in some cases). And so I end up
with a downtime of at least 1-2weeks. + the UBS plans are all more
expensive than the current one.

Basically Telecom was happy to keep the exchange and port "live" for
another month, so that I don't have to endure the changeover crap.


--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
> Thomas Salmen wrote:
>>Sorry, but Craig is right. Because you are on a FastIP Direct line, your
>>traffic never crosses the Orcon network. Orcon simply provides
>>authentication services; there is no way Orcon can ratelimit or throttle
>>your connection, upstream or down.
>
>
> Then why was I told by an Orcon Tech (not a helpdesker) that all the jpp
> 192kps plans were throtled and switched a few months ago, and so Why am
> I getting 160kps only?

I have no idea, and someone from Orcon can offer an answer to that.
However, as stated, Orcon cannot rate limit traffic on FastIP Direct as
the traffic never hits their network.

>>The speed as reported by your modem is simply the size of the PVC connecting
>>back to the local DSLAM. DSL lines are throttled in two places: first, by
>>the size of this PVC, and second by the profile applied to your line on the
>>aggregating B-RAS. It's entirely possible for your DSL line speed to be set
>>to 320 while a 128k traffic shaper is applied to the upstream on your PPPoA
>>session.
>
> I am aware of that, but it eliminates a line issue. Who does the pppoa auth... the ISP...
> So they get a chance here to rate limit, correct?

No. The ISP receives a proxied RADIUS authentication request from
Telecom. The PPPoA authentication happens at the Telecom access device.
The ISP does NOT have the opportunity to inject rate limiting.

All you have proven is that you are not being ratelimited by the DSLAM,
which is one of many places that traffic can be controlled.

>>If you don't change services (whether to UBS, WSB, or some other
>>alternative), then your line will stop working, soon, permanently. That's a
>>Telecom decision, and sadly no amount of complaining will make any
>>difference.
>
>
> I have explained my situation to both telecom and orcon, so turning off
> my connection is complete BS! I am sorry it's just not acceptable
> practice. I don't pay to have my connection turned off so I can ring my
> ISP. They can RING me like any normal business would do, especially
> having it happen when it's CLEAR from my notes that I don't want to
> switch and am well aware of the options.

So it's simple: Hurry up and make the change, or you will shortly have
no service.

> Also, I have arranged for Telecom to extend the grace period, it's all
> up to Orcon now to continue to offer Auth, I have also explained this to
> orcon, and they have (well the last person I spoke too) said that if
> telecom don't turn off the connection (as they have assured me they
> wont) then they will continue to auth...

I would be highly surprised if TNZ had agreed to this. Furthermore,
Orcon will have no choice to not offer the auth when (not if) Telecom
turns off their ability to do so as per the commercial arrangements TNZ
and Orcon have.

If you haven't moved, given the opportunites given to you by TNZ and
Orcon, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

> You see I am moving end of next month. If I am forced to move to UBS for
> a month I then get extra costs involved in paying a disconect fee, orcon
> also ends up paying for the churn fee, there has to be a provisioning
> request, (taking from 14 days to 3 weeks in some cases). And so I end up
> with a downtime of at least 1-2weeks. + the UBS plans are all more
> expensive than the current one.

In my experience with UBS (which is admittedly minor, as I've only
bothered to churn one connection), it was more a fact of a few hours
downtime from the time my PPP session was dropped, to the time I
corrected my username to authenticate as a UBS user.

This was with Orcon.

It was, to my surprise, reasonably painless.

Also, don't assume that Orcon would be paying a churn fee.

> Basically Telecom was happy to keep the exchange and port "live" for
> another month, so that I don't have to endure the changeover crap.

I'd be surprised.


aj.
--
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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

>
> I have no idea, and someone from Orcon can offer an answer to that.
> However, as stated, Orcon cannot rate limit traffic on FastIP Direct as
> the traffic never hits their network.

I think the problem is I get conflicting information everytime I try and
resolve this. Telecom say one thing, that discounts what Orcon tell
me... I go back to orcon, and get told conflicting information again.

I just want to get on with life rather than playing hopscotch.
> No. The ISP receives a proxied RADIUS authentication request from
> Telecom. The PPPoA authentication happens at the Telecom access device.
> The ISP does NOT have the opportunity to inject rate limiting.

Ahh this makes sense from my meagre understanding, this is how the
fullrate jetstream plans work... But as I said because of the various
information I have received, I had come to the conclusion that the
particular jetstream + plan I was on had somehow fallen into a different
auth category. Especially because at one point, Orcon forgot to re-add
the jetstream service on my account for a month and I was still
connecting... albeit with a different IP.

> All you have proven is that you are not being ratelimited by the DSLAM,
> which is one of many places that traffic can be controlled.
That was my understanding yes, so where is it happening?

> So it's simple: Hurry up and make the change, or you will shortly have
> no service.
I can't do that without incurring significant cost! (for a student with
unstable income) One of the reasons I was so cagy about changing is
because this flat was in flux. A week ago we got a date when people are
moving out, and it is the end of next month. Which makes the options all
the more untenable.
>
> I would be highly surprised if TNZ had agreed to this. Furthermore,
> Orcon will have no choice to not offer the auth when (not if) Telecom
> turns off their ability to do so as per the commercial arrangements TNZ
> and Orcon have.
>
> If you haven't moved, given the opportunites given to you by TNZ and
> Orcon, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
No as already explained, none of them have been remotely tenable for
various reasons, not least being that I end up with service disruptions,
have to change over various services to live with a dynamic ip, get
increased cost for decreased upstream speed(not that I have been getting
the 64kbits I moved to this plan for in the first place for last few
months as it turns out)

> In my experience with UBS (which is admittedly minor, as I've only
> bothered to churn one connection), it was more a fact of a few hours
> downtime from the time my PPP session was dropped, to the time I
> corrected my username to authenticate as a UBS user.
>
> This was with Orcon.
>
> It was, to my surprise, reasonably painless.
I have been told that there is a backlog, 14 days does not guarantee the
the churn will happen on time.

Ok i'm not the greatest customer ever, but I do think that I'm fairly
reasonable, currently the optimal solution is for an extension of the
grace by a month. Everyone walks away happy (sans the upstream throttle
issue).

Given the ammount of hassles I have had (and given) I don't see why I
need to get jiped more when there is a tenable solution... i.e extend
the grace for a month.

As I said as of this week, I have been told by telecom that this can
happen. The last orcon staffer gave me the not so concrete asnwer of...
"well if telecom have said they won't disconnect the port at the
exchange on the 28th... then..."

I spose all I want at the moment, is a little better reassurance i'm not
going to get cut off next week. And for some closure on the upstream
issue.


All very messy, partly my fault for sure... but a large chunk not.


Kind regards


Joel W


--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
>>I have no idea, and someone from Orcon can offer an answer to that.
>>However, as stated, Orcon cannot rate limit traffic on FastIP Direct as
>>the traffic never hits their network.
>
>
> I think the problem is I get conflicting information everytime I try and
> resolve this. Telecom say one thing, that discounts what Orcon tell
> me... I go back to orcon, and get told conflicting information again.

I can once again reassure you that Telecom are the ONLY ONES who can
influence rate-limiting on the DSL service you are currently using.

Without knowing how you are determining the throttling, and not having
visibility into Telecom's network, there is no way to say for sure what
is happening. What I would SUSPECT based on memories of when I was a
network operator, is that Telecom are migrating customers off 192k to
128k upstream as they said they would.

Although that doesn't in it's entirety explain the 160kbps upstream you
are seeing, but nonetheless you are getting more than 128k anyway, so be
happy.

>>No. The ISP receives a proxied RADIUS authentication request from
>>Telecom. The PPPoA authentication happens at the Telecom access device.
>> The ISP does NOT have the opportunity to inject rate limiting.
>
>
> Ahh this makes sense from my meagre understanding, this is how the
> fullrate jetstream plans work... But as I said because of the various
> information I have received, I had come to the conclusion that the
> particular jetstream + plan I was on had somehow fallen into a different
> auth category. Especially because at one point, Orcon forgot to re-add
> the jetstream service on my account for a month and I was still
> connecting... albeit with a different IP.

The 2Mbps, 1Mbps, and 256k plans that are NOT UBS are subject to the
same network that fullrate Jetstream runs on, unless an ISP is
particularly financially suicidal and wants to transport the bits
themselves.

>>All you have proven is that you are not being ratelimited by the DSLAM,
>>which is one of many places that traffic can be controlled.
>
> That was my understanding yes, so where is it happening?

Beyond the DSLAM. It's possibly happening at the RAN, IF TNZ has done
what I suspect they may have. I don't know whether they have done, though.

>>So it's simple: Hurry up and make the change, or you will shortly have
>>no service.
>
> I can't do that without incurring significant cost! (for a student with
> unstable income) One of the reasons I was so cagy about changing is
> because this flat was in flux. A week ago we got a date when people are
> moving out, and it is the end of next month. Which makes the options all
> the more untenable.

I don't understand how you incur cost by migrating to a UBS plan. I
must have missed that part.

The other option is to setup an Xtra account which in theory will cost
you no more presuming you have cancelled your Orcon account.

>>I would be highly surprised if TNZ had agreed to this. Furthermore,
>>Orcon will have no choice to not offer the auth when (not if) Telecom
>>turns off their ability to do so as per the commercial arrangements TNZ
>>and Orcon have.
>>
>>If you haven't moved, given the opportunites given to you by TNZ and
>>Orcon, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
>
> No as already explained, none of them have been remotely tenable for
> various reasons, not least being that I end up with service disruptions,
> have to change over various services to live with a dynamic ip, get
> increased cost for decreased upstream speed(not that I have been getting
> the 64kbits I moved to this plan for in the first place for last few
> months as it turns out)

It seems to be you have unreasonably high expectations of a service for
residential users.

>>In my experience with UBS (which is admittedly minor, as I've only
>>bothered to churn one connection), it was more a fact of a few hours
>>downtime from the time my PPP session was dropped, to the time I
>>corrected my username to authenticate as a UBS user.
>>
>>This was with Orcon.
>>
>>It was, to my surprise, reasonably painless.
>
> I have been told that there is a backlog, 14 days does not guarantee the
> the churn will happen on time.
>
> Ok i'm not the greatest customer ever, but I do think that I'm fairly
> reasonable, currently the optimal solution is for an extension of the
> grace by a month. Everyone walks away happy (sans the upstream throttle
> issue).
>
> Given the ammount of hassles I have had (and given) I don't see why I
> need to get jiped more when there is a tenable solution... i.e extend
> the grace for a month.
>
> As I said as of this week, I have been told by telecom that this can
> happen. The last orcon staffer gave me the not so concrete asnwer of...
> "well if telecom have said they won't disconnect the port at the
> exchange on the 28th... then..."
>
> I spose all I want at the moment, is a little better reassurance i'm not
> going to get cut off next week. And for some closure on the upstream
> issue.
>
>
> All very messy, partly my fault for sure... but a large chunk not.

I'm not going to touch this. I really only wanted to interject in this
thread to discuss the rate limiting issue.

aj.
--
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

[Nicholas Lee]

On 10/22/05, Alastair Johnson <***@sneep.net> wrote:

> Although that doesn't in it's entirety explain the 160kbps upstream you
> are seeing, but nonetheless you are getting more than 128k anyway, so be
> happy.

128kbps has always been rate limited by Telecom to about 16kBi/s.
Maybe some confusion with figures?

--
Nicholas Lee
http://stateless.geek.nz
gpg 8072 4F86 EDCD 4FC1 18EF 5BDD 07B0 9597 6D58 D70C

--
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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 14:32 +1300, Nicholas Lee wrote:
>
>

Yup that is my understanding. Hence the 160kps limit and my thinking I
had been switched to some sort of UBS like setup.

--
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

[Simon Byrnand]

At 14:32 25/10/2005, Nicholas Lee wrote:
>On 10/22/05, Alastair Johnson <***@sneep.net> wrote:
>
> > Although that doesn't in it's entirety explain the 160kbps upstream you
> > are seeing, but nonetheless you are getting more than 128k anyway, so be
> > happy.
>
>128kbps has always been rate limited by Telecom to about 16kBi/s.
>Maybe some confusion with figures?

128Kbit upstream data rate plans are throttled to 160Kbit DSL line
rate, and the old 192Kbit data rate plans were throttled to 320Kbit
DSL line rate for the upstream...the difference is due to protocol overheads...

Regards,
Simon

--
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

[Keith & Deby]

Have been watching this for a while, somewhere back a mention was made re
part of the problem was the speed and hosting of some sort, plus dynamic
ips...
unless one is hosting a high usage site, 128kb is fine...
a php nuke site, main page about 60k about 300 members, 2000 odd posts, page
hits between 35,000 to 55,000 a month, chews thru 1500 to 2000 meg a month
up and 200 to 300 meg down, a few downloadable documents, Pic gallery, fully
SOEed , top 5 of most search engines, crawled every day by Google, yahoo,
and 1/2 doz others. Site published for over 12 months, even handles extra
hits when Max Newman decides its worth while, a smtp server, running on
no-ip.
Plus a private photo gallery site. plus on line gaming, general surfing of 6
machines, few driver downloads. Bit of remote Admin on some small
office/school servers. Then a private ftp server in case I need some if Im
out...like a gaming squad get together for a weekend in Aussie, and need the
squads custom maps when hiring out a full gaming cafe..This also has a/cs
for my wife, daughter (student) ma-in-law, ( a teacher)
Oh forgot throw a game server in every so often at periods the web server
doesn't get busy and /or limit the up/ down bw usage on the web server to
stop game lag.
With a bit of extra organising, bw limiting, thought, runs well

We DON'T abuse and download huge amounts of legal music, warez, movies, run
kazza progs etc..well none actually. So I chew up 4.5 to 6 gig a month, tops
7,8 gig.
If someone wants to run high scale servers then get a proper host...or cut
the warez downloading. 12 gig a month..on what? well on what that is legit?
Student? documents? 12gig? DOESN'T ADD UP . If its not legit..a person has
no right to complain. I have a daughter who is a student, flatting, I know
very well the situation of a Student flat, the use the bw is put
to.......and the DVD burners.

Don't get me wrong NZ 'BB' IS a joke, inferior and expensive on world stds,
why? Simple a company's Directors are responsible to the share holders
making the highest possible return...that's the way business works, so the
Telecom directors are doing a good job, they are screwing this country for
every penny they can , while they can.

This is a bit off subject, but these 'side' issues seem to creep in
somewhere in every thread.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Byrnand" <***@igrin.co.nz>
To: "Nicholas Lee" <***@gmail.com>; "Alastair Johnson" <***@sneep.net>
Cc: <***@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: 128Kb/s Upstream Throttles 2Mb/s downstream


> At 14:32 25/10/2005, Nicholas Lee wrote:
> >On 10/22/05, Alastair Johnson <***@sneep.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Although that doesn't in it's entirety explain the 160kbps upstream
you
> > > are seeing, but nonetheless you are getting more than 128k anyway, so
be
> > > happy.
> >
> >128kbps has always been rate limited by Telecom to about 16kBi/s.
> >Maybe some confusion with figures?
>
> 128Kbit upstream data rate plans are throttled to 160Kbit DSL line
> rate, and the old 192Kbit data rate plans were throttled to 320Kbit
> DSL line rate for the upstream...the difference is due to protocol
overheads...
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> --
> 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 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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

Ok this is a goodie... Let me take time to answer this fully.

On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 18:16 +1300, Keith & Deby wrote:
> Have been watching this for a while, somewhere back a mention was made re
> part of the problem was the speed and hosting of some sort, plus dynamic
> ips...

> unless one is hosting a high usage site, 128kb is fine...

Agreed... IF you are not doing any downloading internally. I generally
have at least 2 ssh tunnels open to university, piping imap connections
and sometimes a VNC or X session. This chews easily through a couple of
hundred meg a day.


> a php nuke site, main page about 60k about 300 members, 2000 odd posts, page
> hits between 35,000 to 55,000 a month, chews thru 1500 to 2000 meg a month
> up and 200 to 300 meg down, a few downloadable documents, Pic gallery, fully
> SOEed , top 5 of most search engines, crawled every day by Google, yahoo,
> and 1/2 doz others. Site published for over 12 months, even handles extra
> hits when Max Newman decides its worth while, a smtp server, running on
> no-ip.
I have 2 Postnuke sites including all the crap, on this site. Both are
not large sites. I also have a wordpress and pm wiki site + a few static
pages. All of which are top hits in google. The sites don't do much
traffic. BUT I can tell you, the LINK IS CRAP, with just 1 connection
there is MASSIVE slowdown. Don't take my word... try it...

I don't care about traffic from my webserv... I do care about
throughput. We are handing out pamphlets to 1000's of students in a
couple of hours or doing signups. 128kps... JOKE! Even with pf crafting
(which beleive you me I do on incoming traf as well) 192 was bellow par.


> Plus a private photo gallery site. plus on line gaming, general surfing of 6
> machines, few driver downloads. Bit of remote Admin on some small
> office/school servers. Then a private ftp server in case I need some if Im
> out...like a gaming squad get together for a weekend in Aussie, and need the
> squads custom maps when hiring out a full gaming cafe..This also has a/cs
> for my wife, daughter (student) ma-in-law, ( a teacher)


I don't game... AT ALL. I do run LINUX, I DO installs and backups for
people. All this chews through bandwidth. Gentoo portage mirrors even
when I cache them so the 2 machines internally running gentoo don't need
to download so much still easily do a couple of gigs a month.

Add this to 3 or ISO downloads of the latest
Ubuntu/Suse/Mandrake/OpenBSD or what have you... This is easily my
biggest chunk of usage. Most of which as I've pointed out is National
Traffic.

> Oh forgot throw a game server in every so often at periods the web server
> doesn't get busy and /or limit the up/ down bw usage on the web server to
> stop game lag.
> With a bit of extra organising, bw limiting, thought, runs well
I have Squid pooling setup, but this only help so much and is more for incoming, so that the 4 people on the network
dont saturate with large http downloads.
> We DON'T abuse and download huge amounts of legal music, warez, movies, run
> kazza progs etc..well none actually. So I chew up 4.5 to 6 gig a month, tops
> 7,8 gig.
Honestly we do an additional 2-5 gb per month of bittorrent and or p2p
traffic. Normally this is ... guess what... DVD Iso images of distros...
yes you can use P2P for legal purposes! Who would have thought... i've
actually watched a few fan made movies aswell (purepwnage is funny if
your a geek.)

I can't vouch for my flatmates but their use age of p2p is very limited
and they are well warned that I will block stuff if I find our usage
topping out for the month after a week.

Most of the additional use is from flatmates watching streams and from
VOIP. 2 are internationals and this is understandable.


> If someone wants to run high scale servers then get a proper host...or cut
> the warez downloading. 12 gig a month..on what? well on what that is legit?
> Student? documents? 12gig? DOESN'T ADD UP . If its not legit..a person has
> no right to complain. I have a daughter who is a student, flatting, I know
> very well the situation of a Student flat, the use the bw is put
> to.......and the DVD burners.

> Don't get me wrong NZ 'BB' IS a joke, inferior and expensive on world stds,
> why? Simple a company's Directors are responsible to the share holders
> making the highest possible return...that's the way business works, so the
> Telecom directors are doing a good job, they are screwing this country for
> every penny they can , while they can.
>
> This is a bit off subject, but these 'side' issues seem to creep in
> somewhere in every thread.

Yah, but your justified not understanding why it's important to people
who are using it legitimately... But believe me... you can use 12gb
"legitimately"

--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
> Ok this is a goodie... Let me take time to answer this fully.
>
> On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 18:16 +1300, Keith & Deby wrote:
>
>>Have been watching this for a while, somewhere back a mention was made re
>>part of the problem was the speed and hosting of some sort, plus dynamic
>>ips...
> I have 2 Postnuke sites including all the crap, on this site. Both are
> not large sites. I also have a wordpress and pm wiki site + a few static
> pages. All of which are top hits in google. The sites don't do much
> traffic. BUT I can tell you, the LINK IS CRAP, with just 1 connection
> there is MASSIVE slowdown. Don't take my word... try it...
>
> I don't care about traffic from my webserv... I do care about
> throughput. We are handing out pamphlets to 1000's of students in a
> couple of hours or doing signups. 128kps... JOKE! Even with pf crafting
> (which beleive you me I do on incoming traf as well) 192 was bellow par.

[trimmed]

Simple solution? Stop trying to use a connection which is clearly
insufficient for your needs. It's clear that 128k, 160k, or 192k, is
not sufficient for you.

You might want to look at a webhosting account with a reputable
webhosting company; or look at colocating a server somewhere.

aj.
--
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

[Mark Foster]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Alastair Johnson wrote:

> Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
>> Ok this is a goodie... Let me take time to answer this fully.
>>
>> On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 18:16 +1300, Keith & Deby wrote:
>>
>>> Have been watching this for a while, somewhere back a mention was made re
>>> part of the problem was the speed and hosting of some sort, plus dynamic
>>> ips...
>> I have 2 Postnuke sites including all the crap, on this site. Both are
>> not large sites. I also have a wordpress and pm wiki site + a few static
>> pages. All of which are top hits in google. The sites don't do much
>> traffic. BUT I can tell you, the LINK IS CRAP, with just 1 connection
>> there is MASSIVE slowdown. Don't take my word... try it...
>>
>> I don't care about traffic from my webserv... I do care about
>> throughput. We are handing out pamphlets to 1000's of students in a
>> couple of hours or doing signups. 128kps... JOKE! Even with pf crafting
>> (which beleive you me I do on incoming traf as well) 192 was bellow par.
>
> [trimmed]
>
> Simple solution? Stop trying to use a connection which is clearly
> insufficient for your needs. It's clear that 128k, 160k, or 192k, is not
> sufficient for you.
>
> You might want to look at a webhosting account with a reputable webhosting
> company; or look at colocating a server somewhere.

Thanks AJ.
You beat me to it.
Running your own server at home for 'personal purposes' is one thing.
The description above looks substantially more than most home users are
going to need - and eventually you reach a limit.

This is the reason I pay for a telehousing agreement instead of hosting
stuff on the back of my DSL.

And, FWIW, I find 10Gig is about right - even when I have to move the odd
'big file' around.

I certainly think the upload speed should be faster - we're soooo
asynch'd its not funny - but citing the reasons above is far from making a
good case, IMHO. The case that started this whole thread off - now thats
another story....

Mark.
--
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

[Keith & Deby]

Im no techie...I do know how to identify a problem.
So Joel is a techie student or something, no doing a BT. What is offered is
not suitable for his needs. And At a Guess he is not the only student that
may have these requirements. To go to what business s get he would need a
2nd student loan.
Now have a look at schools, Primary and Intermediate have available, send 35
or 40 machines from a ICT class, how to use a browser, have the Office lady
in putting daily pupil data, and the Principle reading the NZ Herald on
line....
Or go Commercial, the costs are huge.
The home user is basically ok, small business are getting ripped off
The education system in this country, schools and many students, neither of
the above alternatives are suitable or apply.
Lets not forget the directors responsibility to the shareholders, the
shareholders are off shore, so it doesn't matter to them.
So in the mean time...while the education sector doesn't have better
alternatives...they make more money.
Joel is right to be upset...and so is anyone else who has children at the
local Jnr schools.
(I do not know what is available at High Schools or Varsities

Have a Nice Day
Keith & Deby

--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

This is getting REALLY offtopic.

Keith & Deby wrote:
> Im no techie...I do know how to identify a problem.
> So Joel is a techie student or something, no doing a BT. What is offered is
> not suitable for his needs. And At a Guess he is not the only student that
> may have these requirements. To go to what business s get he would need a
> 2nd student loan.

I personally would be surprised if many customers had these requirements
at all. Remember, the average subscriber to this mailing list is the
exception rather than the rule.

At my previous job (ISP, medium-large), our traffic flows were certainly
extremely assymetric from the DSL network. The average customer
uploaded very little traffic.

> Now have a look at schools, Primary and Intermediate have available, send 35
> or 40 machines from a ICT class, how to use a browser, have the Office lady
> in putting daily pupil data, and the Principle reading the NZ Herald on
> line....

Telecom offers School Zone, which is competitively priced. Wired
Country, Woosh, Telecom, ICONZ, also are all a part of PROBE which has
(or should have, for the most part) seen school broadband prices drop
and become more affordable.

SZ seems to be reasonably affordable from what I've read about it, and
lets not forget that people can contribute 'points' from their bill or
something to give the school discounts.

[I don't remember how this works - it's been some time since I went to
school, and I don't have kids..]

I'd imagine a school would actually be reasonably OK with a 2Mb/192k
service, incidentally. With the exception of large email attachments -
the start of this whole thread - the performance should be reasonably ok.

> Or go Commercial, the costs are huge.
> The home user is basically ok, small business are getting ripped off
> The education system in this country, schools and many students, neither of
> the above alternatives are suitable or apply.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Schools, or small business?

Small business have a few options, and they are increasing over time.
The amount NZ broadband/DSL has come forwards in the last 4 years is
remarkable.

> Lets not forget the directors responsibility to the shareholders, the
> shareholders are off shore, so it doesn't matter to them.

This argument gets tiring. There are a LARGE number of domestically
owned Telecom shares.

I don't see people complaining about Vodafone or TelstraClear which are
100% foreign owned. These are often held up as "amazing" companies; and
the same TNZ foreign owned line is trotted out.

And for the record, VF and TCL and their parent companies are just as
evil, if not worse. It's Big Business.

> So in the mean time...while the education sector doesn't have better
> alternatives...they make more money.
> Joel is right to be upset...and so is anyone else who has children at the
> local Jnr schools.

Debatable.

However, this debate should please be put to rest - it's going to go
nowhere. Unless someone is going to raise something technical, lets
take this to adsl-chat.

aj.
--
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

[Russell Fulton]

Alastair Johnson wrote:
> This is getting REALLY offtopic.
>
> Keith & Deby wrote:
>
>> Im no techie...I do know how to identify a problem.
>> So Joel is a techie student or something, no doing a BT. What is
>> offered is
>> not suitable for his needs. And At a Guess he is not the only student
>> that
>> may have these requirements. To go to what business s get he would need a
>> 2nd student loan.
>
>
> I personally would be surprised if many customers had these requirements
> at all. Remember, the average subscriber to this mailing list is the
> exception rather than the rule.
>
> At my previous job (ISP, medium-large), our traffic flows were certainly
> extremely assymetric from the DSL network. The average customer
> uploaded very little traffic.
>

I agree. I work for The University of Auckland and we are a significant
provider of content but our usage is still highly assymetric in favour
of in bound traffic. About 4:1 and that would be much higher if you
subtracted the output of all our servers...

Personally I have a 2Mbps circuit at home and I would be quite happy
with a 256 or 384Kbps up link which would be adequate for running a
small web site for personal interests. I can live with 128K if I have
to :) If you are serious about wanting hosting then get it from a
hosting service. My 17 year old has just brought a hosting package that
included 20GB of traffic for $35NZ from Dreamhosting in the US.

Russell

Russell
--
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

[Simon Byrnand]

At 23:22 25/10/2005, Alastair Johnson wrote:
>This is getting REALLY offtopic.
>
>Keith & Deby wrote:
>>Im no techie...I do know how to identify a problem.
>>So Joel is a techie student or something, no doing a BT. What is offered is
>>not suitable for his needs. And At a Guess he is not the only student that
>>may have these requirements. To go to what business s get he would need a
>>2nd student loan.
>
>I personally would be surprised if many customers had these
>requirements at all. Remember, the average subscriber to this
>mailing list is the exception rather than the rule.
>
>At my previous job (ISP, medium-large), our traffic flows were
>certainly extremely assymetric from the DSL network. The average
>customer uploaded very little traffic.

<sarcasm mode on>

Yes, but is that cause or effect ? Could that perhaps be because they
CANT upload very much traffic ? ;-)

Could it be that people have long since cottoned on to the fact that
they can't do things like decent quality bi-directional video
conferencing that needs more than 128Kbit upstream, and therefore
don't bother ? (Or VoIP for that matter)

Could it be that people that need to send files between home and work
(or between different businesses for that matter) have long since
learnt that its faster to burn it on a CD/DVD and put it in the post,
or sneakernet it ?

(Why pay per MB excess usage charges to send hundreds of megs of
files at a miserable 128Kbit when you can sneakernet it for free, and
get the file there faster ?)

I would suggest that the low use of upstream bandwidth "on average"
is as much about the fact that applications that need higher upstream
DONT WORK and therefore don't get used, leaving only the classic
"email and browsing" type applications as usable...

If the "average" use of upstream bandwidth without artificial
restrictions really is low, then an ISP (and I know its Telecom thats
putting the restriction in place here in the case of ADSL) has
nothing to lose in providing faster upstream, as the "average" use
will remain low, even though a few "power users" would make use of
the upstream to do things they can't do now.

From a technical point of view, providing faster upstream speeds
(and in the case of wireless, symetrical rates) is easy, and as
upstream bandwidth tends to be "underutilized" anyway, its
effectively free to provide it in most cases. (Unless you also have a
lot of webhosting/telehousing traffic to balance your in/out rates)

The only reason for miserable upstream rates like 128kbit on a 2Mbit
connection is to protect voice/frame/fibre from competition.

Regards,
Simon

--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

Simon Byrnand wrote:

> At 23:22 25/10/2005, Alastair Johnson wrote:
>
>> At my previous job (ISP, medium-large), our traffic flows were
>> certainly extremely assymetric from the DSL network. The average
>> customer uploaded very little traffic.
>
>
> <sarcasm mode on>

I hope by this you mean "Devil's Advocate".

> Yes, but is that cause or effect ? Could that perhaps be because they
> CANT upload very much traffic ? ;-)

Unlikely. Perhaps I should s/DSL Network/any access network/. The
traffic assymmetry was across pretty much all access mechanisms, with
the exception of colocation which logically was outbound heavy.

> I would suggest that the low use of upstream bandwidth "on average" is
> as much about the fact that applications that need higher upstream DONT
> WORK and therefore don't get used, leaving only the classic "email and
> browsing" type applications as usable...

This is probably true in a very small part. Again, the average user
does not use much outbound traffic. This is a very obvious trend across
all access networks.

> If the "average" use of upstream bandwidth without artificial
> restrictions really is low, then an ISP (and I know its Telecom thats
> putting the restriction in place here in the case of ADSL) has nothing
> to lose in providing faster upstream, as the "average" use will remain
> low, even though a few "power users" would make use of the upstream to
> do things they can't do now.

Network traffic explosion from uncontained P2P usage is a major risk.
Why do you think a large number of overseas telcos went from symmetrical
service (or a much better in:out ratio), anyway?

The major application that the majority of users would use is a P2P
client of some description. Most people don't, and won't, use
VoIP/Video-over-IP/etc. There is limited interest.

> From a technical point of view, providing faster upstream speeds (and
> in the case of wireless, symetrical rates) is easy, and as upstream
> bandwidth tends to be "underutilized" anyway, its effectively free to
> provide it in most cases. (Unless you also have a lot of
> webhosting/telehousing traffic to balance your in/out rates)

Again, uncontained P2P traffic growth is a major, major, risk. Various
people have already commented on what happens with bill shock when a P2P
client is left sharing a handful of files. You start doing that on a
large scale across tens of thousands of users and you might find
yourself in a sudden reversal of traffic patterns.

> The only reason for miserable upstream rates like 128kbit on a 2Mbit
> connection is to protect voice/frame/fibre from competition.

Absolutely, but this is not the ONLY reason.


aj.
--
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

[Simon Byrnand]

>>I would suggest that the low use of upstream bandwidth "on average"
>>is as much about the fact that applications that need higher
>>upstream DONT WORK and therefore don't get used, leaving only the
>>classic "email and browsing" type applications as usable...
>
>This is probably true in a very small part. Again, the average user
>does not use much outbound traffic. This is a very obvious trend
>across all access networks.

Yes, but once again, is this cause or effect ? You can't say that
with any certainty.

>>If the "average" use of upstream bandwidth without artificial
>>restrictions really is low, then an ISP (and I know its Telecom
>>thats putting the restriction in place here in the case of ADSL)
>>has nothing to lose in providing faster upstream, as the "average"
>>use will remain low, even though a few "power users" would make use
>>of the upstream to do things they can't do now.
>
>Network traffic explosion from uncontained P2P usage is a major
>risk. Why do you think a large number of overseas telcos went from
>symmetrical service (or a much better in:out ratio), anyway?

To protect their Voice/Fibre/Frame services when they cottoned onto
the fact that DSL would undercut them all for a large percentage of
their customers ? Most likely VoIP hadn't been "discovered" by the
masses when the plans were first rolled out, and when businesses
realised they could save a lot of money on voice calls by
implementing VoIP the Telco's retrospectively slashed the upstream
rates to protect their other services.

>The major application that the majority of users would use is a P2P
>client of some description. Most people don't, and won't, use
>VoIP/Video-over-IP/etc. There is limited interest.

There is limited interest partly because people CAN'T do it. Without
the necessary upstream bandwidth VoIP and video stuff etc is just a
pipe dream to most people. You can't make something impossible and
then say "oh, but theres limited interest". Do you think VoIP would
be more commonly used if it was easy to set up and get working and
saved people money ? You betcha. At least for businesses...

>> From a technical point of view, providing faster upstream speeds
>> (and in the case of wireless, symetrical rates) is easy, and as
>> upstream bandwidth tends to be "underutilized" anyway, its
>> effectively free to provide it in most cases. (Unless you also
>> have a lot of webhosting/telehousing traffic to balance your in/out rates)
>
>Again, uncontained P2P traffic growth is a major, major,
>risk. Various people have already commented on what happens with
>bill shock when a P2P client is left sharing a handful of
>files. You start doing that on a large scale across tens of
>thousands of users and you might find yourself in a sudden reversal
>of traffic patterns.

A major risk, how ? Only on so-called "flat rate" plans, which have
always been a bugaboo for ISP's. The answer to that is simple - don't
provide symetrical flat rate plans, reserve symetrical speeds for
plans with excess usage charges. People that want symetrical speeds
pay excess use if they go over their cap.

An ISP usually buys their bandwidth symetrically, and you have to
make use of that upstream somehow to get best dollar value out of it,
whether it be by balancing it out with hosting traffic, or offering
decent upstream speeds or both.

Most ISP's/Telco's charge customers for the sum of both upstream and
downstream MB use, so any additional upstream use on a capped plan
counts towards more MB use (and thus more excess use charge if they
go over their cap) even though in reality it costs the ISP no more to
provide - thus a win situation for the ISP, and also a win situation
for the customer in that they have the CHOICE of choosing a symetric
(or "high" upstream) plan over one with 128Kbit upstream if they so desire.

Is this all just a pipe dream ? Nope, we've been providing symetrical
business wireless plans for a long time now and its a win-win
situation for us and our customers. Customers with large numbers of
client computers off one connection really notice the difference of
the higher upstream (and proper QoS traffic shaping as well) and more
than one has remarked that to their surprise a 512/512 wireless
connection is more usable than their old 2Mbit/128Kbit Jetstream connection.

On ADSL though, we're in the same boat as everyone else, due to
Telecom's restrictions...

Give the market choice, and supply and demand will sort itself out...

Regards,
Simon

--
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

[Juha Saarinen]

Simon Byrnand wrote:
> Yes, but is that cause or effect ? Could that perhaps be because they
> CANT upload very much traffic ? ;-)

Yes, indeed... and DSL in NZ has always been steeply asymmetric, even
the full-speed Jetstream. Not that anyone would dare to use that for up
or even downloading anything much.

The low upstream speed chokes Xtra's business as well. Recently, Xtra
launched a digital photo printing service together with Frog Prints. Not
a bad business idea, but how happy will customers be when they discover
that uploading the contents of that 256/512MB SD card takes the best
part of a day and stops all other traffic on their DSL connection? It
makes more sense to burn the pictures onto a CD and sending that to Frog
Prints instead, but Telecom doesn't see the fine irony in that
unfortunately.

As Simon says, there's no technical reason for the low upstream. It's
just an arbitrary marketing decision by Telecom, nothing else.

--
Juha
Oh! Oh! Un affrontement intercommunitaire!
--
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

[Keith & Deby]

Its established and agreed that that telecom is choking the system...
When did they start doing this?
About late April/ early May?



Have a Nice Day
Keith & Deby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juha Saarinen" <***@saarinen.org>
To: "Simon Byrnand" <***@igrin.co.nz>
Cc: <***@lists.unixathome.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: 128Kb/s Upstream Throttles 2Mb/s downstream


> Simon Byrnand wrote:
> > Yes, but is that cause or effect ? Could that perhaps be because they
> > CANT upload very much traffic ? ;-)
>
> Yes, indeed... and DSL in NZ has always been steeply asymmetric, even
> the full-speed Jetstream. Not that anyone would dare to use that for up
> or even downloading anything much.
>
> The low upstream speed chokes Xtra's business as well. Recently, Xtra
> launched a digital photo printing service together with Frog Prints. Not
> a bad business idea, but how happy will customers be when they discover
> that uploading the contents of that 256/512MB SD card takes the best
> part of a day and stops all other traffic on their DSL connection? It
> makes more sense to burn the pictures onto a CD and sending that to Frog
> Prints instead, but Telecom doesn't see the fine irony in that
> unfortunately.
>
> As Simon says, there's no technical reason for the low upstream. It's
> just an arbitrary marketing decision by Telecom, nothing else.
>
> --
> Juha
> Oh! Oh! Un affrontement intercommunitaire!
> --
> 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 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]

Keith & Deby wrote:
> Its established and agreed that that telecom is choking the system...
> When did they start doing this?
> About late April/ early May?

Dear Mailing list.

When replying please remove the adsl@ address and only leave the
additional adsl-chat@ address. This is in place to keep list noise
(which this thread has become) to a minimum.

(This has been CC'd to adsl@ as my last post moving such a thread to the
list obviously missed some people)

As for your comment. Try replacing "Telecom" with "the Government" and
you might actually start approaching truth.

HAND

--
Steve.
--
To unsubscribe: send mail to <***@lists.unixathome.org>
with "unsubscribe adsl-chat" in the body of the message

[Juha Saarinen]

Alastair Johnson wrote:
> Simple solution? Stop trying to use a connection which is clearly
> insufficient for your needs. It's clear that 128k, 160k, or 192k, is
> not sufficient for you.
>
> You might want to look at a webhosting account with a reputable
> webhosting company; or look at colocating a server somewhere.

Yep! Colo or host your tiny site somewhere and stay off DSL. NZ
"broadband" just isn't good enough.

Dialup is good enough for anyone and if it isn't... well, the internet
is overrated isn't it?

--
Juha
--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

Juha Saarinen wrote:
> Alastair Johnson wrote:
>
>> Simple solution? Stop trying to use a connection which is clearly
>> insufficient for your needs. It's clear that 128k, 160k, or 192k, is
>> not sufficient for you.
>>
>> You might want to look at a webhosting account with a reputable
>> webhosting company; or look at colocating a server somewhere.
>
>
> Yep! Colo or host your tiny site somewhere and stay off DSL. NZ
> "broadband" just isn't good enough.

I'd like to point out NZ isn't the only country in the world which has
asymmetric broadband services. Cox cable for a long, long, time was
5-10Mbps down, 128k up, in a lot of states in the US. Many other
examples - a certain cable modem provider in New York was cable speeds
(2-3mbps) down, but 33.6k up. Via a modem.

> Dialup is good enough for anyone and if it isn't... well, the internet
> is overrated isn't it?

Well, if we didn't have bonzi buddy and flash, you could probably get by
on dialup.

aj
--
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

[Matt Brown]

On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 21:40 +1300, Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:

> Ok i'm not the greatest customer ever, but I do think that I'm fairly
> reasonable,

Forgive me if I've gained the wrong impression of you. But based on your
posts so far you seem to be a very demanding and high maintenance
customer... not at all representative of the "mainstream".

--
Matt Brown
***@mattb.net.nz
Mob [phone] www.mattb.net.nz

--
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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

> Forgive me if I've gained the wrong impression of you. But based on your
> posts so far you seem to be a very demanding and high maintenance
> customer... not at all representative of the "mainstream".

Your probably right. It's probably testament to the adage a little bit
of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I spose I'm just annoyed at continually getting the run around. I am
fairly demanding yes, but generally only in response to inadequate
handling. If you screw up as an ISP/Telco, just because you are big does
not give you the right to ignore or not go out of your way to fix said
problem. There is definitely an attitude of "We can get away with this,
people won't notice, won't mind, do stuff ask later" in this industry
and that's not right. Legally and/morally. Yes it might be
"economically" efficient but what happened to "putting it right"?




--
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]

Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
> Your probably right. It's probably testament to the adage a little bit
> of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

More like "A little missinformation goes a long way of making yourself
look like an idiot."

> I spose I'm just annoyed at continually getting the run around. I am
> fairly demanding yes,

Understatement of the month I believe.

> but generally only in response to inadequate handling.

Or due to your own lack of knowledge, especially when coupled with the
false belief that you do actually know what yer talking about.

> If you screw up as an ISP/Telco, just because you are big does
> not give you the right to ignore or not go out of your way to fix said
> problem.

You're right, small businesses do this quite a lot too..

> There is definitely an attitude of "We can get away with this,
> people won't notice, won't mind, do stuff ask later" in this industry
> and that's not right. Legally and/morally. Yes it might be
> "economically" efficient but what happened to "putting it right"?

Please stop smoking those drugs.

--
Steve.
--
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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 23:49 +1300, Steve Phillips wrote:
Thank your for the constructive comments.

Please keep personal insults off list tho, as much as I love a good dose
of humility I think perhaps we are moving slightly off topic.


Regards

Joel W

--
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

[LEE Tet Yoon]

At 09:40 p.m. 22/10/2005, you wrote:
>I can't do that without incurring significant cost! (for a student with
>unstable income) One of the reasons I was so cagy about changing is
>because this flat was in flux. A week ago we got a date when people are
>moving out, and it is the end of next month. Which makes the options all
>the more untenable.

I'm a bit confused about what cost. To my best knowledge, you don't pay the churn fee (at least not directly) and there is no minimum period. Unless you're on a minimum period with Telecom who are going to try to force you to pay up (as others have reported) then I don't see what this mystical cost is.

Your situation is unfortunate. But Telecom and Orcon can't be blamed for inconvenience caused due to the fact your changing flat. Telecom perhaps can be blamed for making the decision to end JPP but that's all. If Orcon is force to pay a churn fee and only to lose you a month later that is unfortunate but really in this case it would seem best to just let them or follow my recommendation below.

Personally, I think you best option would have been to go back to dialup for few weeks while your changing flat. Annoying perhaps but do you really need broadband that seriously?

>No as already explained, none of them have been remotely tenable for
>various reasons, not least being that I end up with service disruptions,
>have to change over various services to live with a dynamic ip, get
>increased cost for decreased upstream speed(not that I have been getting
>the 64kbits I moved to this plan for in the first place for last few
>months as it turns out)
>
>> In my experience with UBS (which is admittedly minor, as I've only
>> bothered to churn one connection), it was more a fact of a few hours
>> downtime from the time my PPP session was dropped, to the time I
>> corrected my username to authenticate as a UBS user.
>>
>> This was with Orcon.
>>
>> It was, to my surprise, reasonably painless.
>I have been told that there is a backlog, 14 days does not guarantee the
>the churn will happen on time.

Are you sure you have to live with a dynamic IP. I know there has been a lot of discussion about this in the past. AFAIK, a number of ISPs offer static IPs with UBS but they discouraged (barred?) by Telecom from advertising this. I know those who signed up for UBS with Orcon in the early days (e.g. me) got them.

Also, if you are going to be moving flat in a month or whatever then you are going to be losing your 192k upstream in a month, so I really don't see what's the fuss considering you don't even have a 192k upstream!

There are many UBS options with many ISPs. AFAIK, most of them are cheaper then JPP or Xtra especially if you have tolls with said ISP. For example, you'll pay $70 to Xtra (if you have tolls with Telecom) for a 2mbit/128k 10gb connection with Telecom. You'll pay $49.95 for a 2mbit/128k 11gb UBS connection (although this is not a flatrate connection, you pay $10 for every 10gb or part thereof extra you use). If you don't have tolls with Orcon it'll be $10 extra so still cheaper. Similarly, $49.95 for a 2mbit/128k 10gb+10gb connection from Ihug (this is flat rate) although you'll pay more and have less data if you don't have tolls with Ihug. Ihug doesn't even count uploads to your data cap which must be good for you since I guess upload is a big part of your traffic. I'm sure other ISPs have similar plans, I'm only aware of these two as I use Orcon and am considering changing to Ihug due t
o their good 2mbit plans for 'heavy' users.

Also, as others have said, the service disruptions you speak about are for most users no where near the level which you seem to think they are. The only issue is that Telecom does not always appear to change over when they say they will (at least this happened with me). This does not mean you do not have service rather that you may not know when to change your authentication information. However this should not be that great a hassle. You can change authentication info when they say you should and if it does not work, go back to the old info and keep trying every day or some such. Alternatively, wait until your connection stops working then change authentication information (although I would not recommend this for various reasons). At most I expect you'll get an hour of downtime but I suspect probably a few minutes is more likely Obviously, this is not counting the time it takes you to c
hange authentication info.

In your specific case, it's possible Telecom's failure to change over your connection on time might in fact result in your losing all service but if this happens, it's your fault. This will only occur because Telecom had ended your connection, as have you've been warned is going to happen and you did not take action soon enough.

>Given the ammount of hassles I have had (and given) I don't see why I
>need to get jiped more when there is a tenable solution... i.e extend
>the grace for a month.
>
>As I said as of this week, I have been told by telecom that this can
>happen. The last orcon staffer gave me the not so concrete asnwer of...
>"well if telecom have said they won't disconnect the port at the
>exchange on the 28th... then..."

As far as I can tell, Orcon's position here is simply if Telecom does what you say they promised to do, you will not have any problem. If they don't, please don't come moaning to us because it's not our fault, don't expect us to do anything about it. This is a reasonable position IMHO, especially considering the amount of moaning you appear to do (actually it's a reasonable position whatever you're like, Orcon can't be held at fault for Telecom not doing what they said they would)

>I spose all I want at the moment, is a little better reassurance i'm not
>going to get cut off next week. And for some closure on the upstream
>issue.

If Telecom has really promised to keep your connection active, I do hope you've got that in a written reply. If not, I hope you at least go the name of the person who promised you this and perhaps recorded the conversation. This way, you should at least get some sort of rebate for your inconvenience. In my experience Telecom appears to be good at offering rebates provided you can actually convince them that they have done something wrong (which is usually the tricky part)

--
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

[Joel Wiramu Pauling]

> I'm a bit confused about what cost. To my best knowledge, you don't pay the churn fee (at least not directly) and there is no minimum period. Unless you're on a minimum period with Telecom who are going to try to force you to pay up (as others have reported) then I don't see what this mystical cost is.
>
> Your situation is unfortunate. But Telecom and Orcon can't be blamed for inconvenience caused due to the fact your changing flat. Telecom perhaps can be blamed for making the decision to end JPP but that's all. If Orcon is force to pay a churn fee and only to lose you a month later that is unfortunate but really in this case it would seem best to just let them or follow my recommendation below.
>
> Personally, I think you best option would have been to go back to dialup for few weeks while your changing flat. Annoying perhaps but do you really need broadband that seriously?
>

Ok... Both telecom and Orcon have a minimum sign up period of 4-6
months. If I disconnect before this period (which I would be forced to
do ). I inccur a disconnect fee, of around 50$.

Extra Costs.

1: 2Mbit (2048kbit) Download / 128kbit Upload (Home) : Orcon |49.95 INC
Gst for 1 GB of Traf. (most similar plan to the one currently on)

Now add another $20 as we are generally using around 12 GB of
traffic(the orcon way of doing taffic now) a month. Total is a minimum
69.95

Factor the upstream is less, and right there you have a more expensive
option that I'm currently at a degradation in upstream. Telecom works
out even more expensive.


I will probably have to go with Dialup for a few weeks regardless when I
move on the 30th of Nov, but I have arranged for a friend to host my
shit for a couple of weeks at the end of November. But that's not for
another month. Can you image a 4 person flat sharing over a 33.6kps
connection.. i've done it before (it's setup as fallback) but it's
bloody nasty. Not to mention then we have no PHONE for a whole month.


>
> Are you sure you have to live ith a dynamic IP. I know there has been a lot of discussion about this in the past. AFAIK, a number of ISPs offer static IPs with UBS but they discouraged (barred?) by Telecom from advertising this. I know those who signed up for UBS with Orcon in the early days (e.g. me) got them.

If I stick with Orcon I get a New IP, (as discussed) while the range I
am on at the moment is an orcon range, it is part of the fastIP network,
and so moving to ubs would mean a new IP, regardless of it being static
this means I have to switch stuff over for a month regardless of it
being static.

If I go with the telecom/xtra option then YES I have to stick with
dynamic.


> Also, if you are going to be moving flat in a month or whatever then
> you are going to be losing your 192k upstream in a month, so I really
> don't see what's the fuss considering you don't even have a 192k
> upstream!
Ok maybe you don't but this has had real world implications. (Namely
people not signing up for research sessions because of long wait times
on pages on my server, i've seen it, happens it's not just
hypothetical). This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. I don't
actually care too much at the moment, but the fact you say somthing
stupid like this demonstrates that there are people out there who think
it's ok to go ahead and change stuff without thinking about the
consequences. Then they get all defensive when someone like me get's up
in arms over the fact that they have had it changes without any
notification! I mean common what do you expect?
>
> There are many UBS options with many ISPs. AFAIK, most of them are cheaper then JPP or Xtra especially if you have tolls with said ISP. For example, you'll pay $70 to Xtra (if you have tolls with Telecom) for a 2mbit/128k 10gb connection with Telecom. You'll pay $49.95 for a 2mbit/128k 11gb UBS connection (although this is not a flatrate connection, you pay $10 for every 10gb or part thereof extra you use). If you don't have tolls with Orcon it'll be $10 extra so still cheaper. Similarly, $49.95 for a 2mbit/128k 10gb+10gb connection from Ihug (this is flat rate) although you'll pay more and have less data if you don't have tolls with Ihug. Ihug doesn't even count uploads to your data cap which must be good for you since I guess upload is a big part of your traffic. I'm sure other ISPs have similar plans, I'm only aware of these two as I use Orcon and am considering changing to Ihug due
to their good 2mbit plans for 'heavy' users.
>
> Also, as others have said, the service disruptions you speak about are for most users no where near the level which you seem to think they are. The only issue is that Telecom does not always appear to change over when they say they will (at least this happened with me). This does not mean you do not have service rather that you may not know when to change your authentication information. However this should not be that great a hassle. You can change authentication info when they say you should and if it does not work, go back to the old info and keep trying every day or some such. Alternatively, wait until your connection stops working then change authentication information (although I would not recommend this for various reasons). At most I expect you'll get an hour of downtime but I suspect probably a few minutes is more likely Obviously, this is not counting the time it takes you to
change authentication info.
>
> In your specific case, it's possible Telecom's failure to change over your connection on time might in fact result in your losing all service but if this happens, it's your fault. This will only occur because Telecom had ended your connection, as have you've been warned is going to happen and you did not take action soon enough.

Actually I contest this. As above, the current UBS offers tend to work
out worse for those people who were on the first round of stripped down
JPP plans. Also due to Orcon (and other ISPS) not peering at the WIX in
wellington, there is only ONE NZ isp that offers free national traffic,
Which is maxnet. Given 50%+ of my traffic is to local WIX mirrors the
UBS offers are less than appetising.

Okay I realise that peering at the WIX for an auckland ISP means having
some sort of presence here, but it would be great for a number of other
reasons.


> >Given the ammount of hassles I have had (and given) I don't see why I
> >need to get jiped more when there is a tenable solution... i.e extend
> >the grace for a month.
> >
> >As I said as of this week, I have been told by telecom that this can
> >happen. The last orcon staffer gave me the not so concrete asnwer of...
> >"well if telecom have said they won't disconnect the port at the
> >exchange on the 28th... then..."
>
> As far as I can tell, Orcon's position here is simply if Telecom does what you say they promised to do, you will not have any problem. If they don't, please don't come moaning to us because it's not our fault, don't expect us to do anything about it. This is a reasonable position IMHO, especially considering the amount of moaning you appear to do (actually it's a reasonable position whatever you're like, Orcon can't be held at fault for Telecom not doing what they said they would)

Yup, at the moment, I am happy about this. And yes I have a LOG of EVERY
discussion I have had with both telecom and orcon dating back to late
august. Orcon appears to be coming out cleaner than originally thought,
and Telecom either through incompetency or deliberate misdirection
worse. I do however still believe Orcon has been at fault for the silly
disconnections, and I don't believe that's on. Regardless of any other
circumstances, it's comparable to a small child taking the toys away
from another child when they are not looking so they will play with
them.



> >I spose all I want at the moment, is a little better reassurance i'm not
> >going to get cut off next week. And for some closure on the upstream
> >issue.
>
> If Telecom has really promised to keep your connection active, I do hope you've got that in a written reply. If not, I hope you at least go the name of the person who promised you this and perhaps recorded the conversation. This way, you should at least get some sort of rebate for your inconvenience. In my experience Telecom appears to be good at offering rebates provided you can actually convince them that they have done something wrong (which is usually the tricky part)

As I said I am eager to get something a little more concrete than what I
currently have, from either party. But from 2 seperate people in Telecom
I have been told its go.


Kind regards


Joel W


--
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

[Brian Gibbons]

>From: "Thomas Salmen" <***@orcon.net.nz>
> Accounts were disabled in an effort to get people into action to shift to
an
> alternative that is not going to stop working in two weeks time. There has
> been a concerted effort to make people aware of the impending withdrawal
of
> the JPP service, but there are still a small number of users who have made
> no action to change.

"Concerted effort" - hardly; it seems Telecom have asked ISPs to convince
Telecom Jetstream users that Telecom are about to disconnect their Telecom
supplied service.

More than half the Jetstream users we look after have not received any form
of notification from Telecom that their Jetstream connection is going to
"die" very soon.

We have notified those users, but when they follow up with their Telecom
rep. they get a variety of responses, the most common being "there are no
plans to discontinue this service".

There has been zero media coverage (that's you Paul/Juha)

There have been no media releases from Telecom (that I have seen).
http://www.telecom-media.co.nz/releases.asp

So convincing a Jetstream user that they have to "do something" (like change
to a service that is slower, and pay the ISP for that service instead of
Telecom) is a good way of losing the trust of your clients.

I have heard a rumour that Telecom are going to "disconnect" all these
businesses in about a week, despite the fact that they are paying Telecom
for the service and have received no notification of discontinuation from
Telecom. We have requested evidence of this in writing from Telecom, but had
no response.

>From what I can tell, this is just a rumour or a joke, not sure who started
it but we have given up circulating it. There is no way Telecom would
disconnect a paying customer without first notifying them.

Cheers

BG




--
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

[Dave - Dave.net.nz]

Brian Gibbons wrote:

>There is no way Telecom would
>disconnect a paying customer without first notifying them.
>

is that a Tui ad I hear?
--
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

[Juha Saarinen]

Brian Gibbons wrote:
> There has been zero media coverage (that's you Paul/Juha)

Not correct...

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/26B488C5339BD641CC256F2D000D1E04

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/DD8302743B8DAA23CC256F9D0083BE52

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/FC044627C4B98D49CC256FF4003F36A4

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/CEC4572801B1A40DCC25705000206F0C

> There have been no media releases from Telecom (that I have seen).
> http://www.telecom-media.co.nz/releases.asp

Not there, but Telecom sent these two to ISPs:

http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/ws_2004_07_26b.pdf

http://www.telecom.co.nz/binarys/ws-2005-04-14.pdf

So the death of JSPP has been signalled for quite a while. I'm not
saying Telecom's doing the right thing here however.

> So convincing a Jetstream user that they have to "do something" (like change
> to a service that is slower, and pay the ISP for that service instead of
> Telecom) is a good way of losing the trust of your clients.

Yes... or, you could tell them to go to Xtra of course, because they do
have a "choice". Ha.

--
Juha
--
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 Withers]

On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 11:01 +1300, Juha Saarinen wrote:
> Brian Gibbons wrote:
> > There has been zero media coverage (that's you Paul/Juha)
>
> Not correct...
>
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/26B488C5339BD641CC256F2D000D1E04
>
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/DD8302743B8DAA23CC256F9D0083BE52
>
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/FC044627C4B98D49CC256FF4003F36A4
>
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/CEC4572801B1A40DCC25705000206F0C


OK...more than absolute zero....but close to it where most users of
media are concerned. Computerworld would have a very small readership
and would be "niche" media.

Not your fault. You do a good job.

But 99.??% of Kiwis won't be reading an IT publication like
Computerworld.


--
Steve Withers <***@mmp.org.nz>

--
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

[Brian Gibbons]

> Brian Gibbons wrote:
> > There has been zero media coverage (that's you Paul/Juha)
>
>From: "Juha Saarinen" <***@saarinen.org>
> Not correct...
>
<snip> - links to some articles
>
> Not there, but Telecom sent these two to ISPs:
>
<snip>

See, you have just proven that this is all a rumour :)

The articles are full of comments like [it will stop working in 31st August
2005], or [you can't order Jetstream after 31st May 2005]. None of which
turned out to be true (where did you get the information from).

So I assume the 31st October 2005 deadline is just another rumour and so are
many business Jetstream users (they don't believe you anymore). Why should
they go to the hassle/expense of switching services, fixing up email
settings, DNS settings etc when they don't have to.


Cheers

BG


--
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 Withers]

On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 10:20 +1300, Brian Gibbons wrote:

> More than half the Jetstream users we look after have not received any form
> of notification from Telecom that their Jetstream connection is going to
> "die" very soon.

This would be true of myself, too.

Orcon called me in July - as my nominal ISP, I guess that made sense -
but Telecom never said "Boo" about the Jetstream service I was paying
them to provide.

Readers of the list may recall I was then hit for $99 for "early
disconnection Promo fee" for disconnecting from an offering they were
cut me off from if I did nothing.

I posted the outcome on that to the list a few days ago.

--
Steve Withers <***@mmp.org.nz>

--
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

[Alastair Johnson]

Joel Wiramu Pauling wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 16:40 +1300, Craig Whitmore wrote:
>
>
>>As far as I know customers on the 192k upstream where going to stay on this
>>speed and only new plans (from a certain date where going to be on 128k)
>>on Jetstream. The ISP has no control on the throttling of the speed. (this
>>is something telecom does - it does not even touch the ISP's network). Maybe
>>during some change around on Telecom's end your 192K upload was changed to
>>128K.
>
>
> You are correct in thinking that customers on those plans were to stay
> with the slightly higher upstream.

Actually, my recollection was that Telecom would at a later date slowly
migrate these customers over to 128k. I might have misremembered this,
though.

> You are incorrect in the assumption however that the ISP has no control
> over the upstream rate. The ISP's are definitely the ones rate limiting
> the upstream in my case, and it does "TOUCH" the isp's network as it
> uses the ISP's routes...

I'm afraid Craig is correct. As far as the DSLAM goes, only Telecom has
control over it. That will affect your sync rate.

Telecom also has control over the RAN you connect to, which may
implement shaping on your connection. This can definitely result in the
128k limitation if TNZ have made a change within their network to
migrate customers off the 192k upstream rate as per my original memory.

You are, looking at the IP address you posted from, using Fast IP
Direct, which the ISP does not have any influence over at the IP layer,
so they cannot introduce any rate limiting.

> Telecom are not, and HAVE not throttled the connection, both the modem
> and the dslam are reporting the 320kps rate. I have talked to an Orcon
> rep two weeks ago that confirmed that it was orcon that switched all
> customers over and rate limited them months ago... to 160kps
> upstream.... I could be wrong in trusting the conversations I've had
> with Telecom and Orcon. But this seems the only logical explanation. The
> isp's are fiddling and NOT telecom.

The DSLAM is not the only point of traffic rate limiting. As Craig
said, Orcon have no influence over the connection within TNZ's network
at the DSL, ATM, or IP layers. They can ONLY implement shaping within
their own network and only at the IP layer, unless you are a UBS user.

They CANNOT do this for Fast IP Direct.

> Also ORCON have been switching off Jetstream partnering program
> connections purposely for the last 4 months to force the customers to
> ring and to change to UBS. This is NOT good practice, I have also had
> this confirmed with reps at Orcon in the last week. As some Muppet did
> it to my Connection after I rang about a seperate issue the night
> before. I was without internet for half a day and had to wait for the
> orcon helpdesk to come in in the morning. I spent 12-2am on the phone
> with jetstream trying to establish with the nightshift if it was their
> issue or not... eventually we gave up thinking it was a router dieing...
> But it ending up being my first assumption that ORCON had turned the
> account off....

Telecom and ISPs have both been advising users they must move off
Jetstream Partnering as the agreement is running to a close.

If Orcon shut your account off they are probably trying to give you a
hint to either shift to Xtra, or move to UBS.

aj
--
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